LCR23315

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

The Union referred this case to the Labour Court on 6 May 2026 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 July 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a referral by IWU under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The referral states:

Page 1

                  “Carers working in Northside Home Care Services, along with other Section 39 workers, were excluded from a pay deal between the HSE and larger unions in April 2025 which saw them recategorised as non-Section 39 workers. This recategorisation meant that these workers now have worse pay and conditions of employment than their colleagues who were not recategorised, even though they do the same work. Their work has remained the same for the previous 25+ years. The Employer is stating that this is out of their hands, and because the HSE puts their contract out to tender, they are thus exempt from having to abide by any HSE internal pay agreements, etc. The Employer is refusing to engage with the workers on any level and is refusing to meet with their union representatives. The Workers are looking for the Court to recommend wage increases similar to other healthcare assistants who are Section 39 workers, in lieu of being excluded from the nationally agreed deal in April 2025.”

The Union Official confirmed to the Court that their members accepted that they were bound by the Labour Court’s recommendation.

The Union submitted that, following negotiations at national level, the HSE agreed a 9.25% pay increase for approximately 40,000 workers employed in various not-for-profit and charitable organisations, including Section 39 organisations. The Employer in this case, along with a number of other providers, was excluded from this agreement due to the HSE’s home support tendering and funding arrangement.

On 8 October 2025, the Union wrote to the Employer seeking to have the March 2025 pay deal applied to them and advising that they were reserving the right to ballot their members for industrial action if they did not receive a positive response by 24 October 2025. On 23 October 2025, the Employer responded advising that it does not formally recognise any trade union and that the pay agreement between ICTU and the HSE applied to services provided under service-level agreements, grants or service arrangements and does not apply to tendered contracts. As the services provided by the Employer are provided by tender process, they are not covered by the pay agreement. The letter went on to say that the Employer would continue to engage with its employees on the matter.

On 14 November 2025, the Union notified the Employer of the outcome of its ballot for industrial action. On 9 January 2026, the Union served formal notice of strike action. The Workers have, to date, engaged in seven periods of industrial action in support of their claim. While the Union accepts that the HSE bears significant responsibility for the funding arrangements which have contributed to this dispute, it is its position that the Employer has not at any stage made any proposal capable of being considered by the members. Although the Employer has asserted that it has been actively engaged with the Department of Health and the HSE in an effort to secure funding, there have been no pay increases delivered in the last 10 months. The Union is seeking meaningful pay increases with the objective of achieving parity with comparable healthcare assistants employed in similar organisations.

The Employer submitted that the issue before the Court did not arise from any decision taken by it regarding employee remuneration, nor from any refusal to recognise the value of its workforce. The dispute arises from the scope and application of a nationally negotiated funding arrangement from which this Employer was expressly excluded. The pay terms in that agreement were backdated to October 2024 and were as follows:

• 2.25% from 1 October 2024
• 1% from 1 April 2025
• 2% from 1 November 2025
• 2% from 1 April 2026
• 2% from October 2026

During the same period, it had paid the following increases:

• 1.5% from August 2024
• 4.5% from May 2025

When totalled to the end of 2025, the Employer had actually paid more than was awarded by the March 2025 agreement. The Employer also indicated to employee representatives that a pay review would take place in 2026,

Page 2

contingent on funding stability and operational capacity. Having regard to the ongoing industrial action, the Employer has not been in a position to progress that review.

The present dispute does not arise from any failure of the Employer to engage with its employees or their representatives, but from the absence of a funding framework capable of supporting implementation of the claim.

There have been seven separate periods of industrial action since January 2026, with only seven days’ notice of action being given. The Union did not engage in accordance with the provisions of the WRC Code of Practice on Industrial Action in Essential Services, despite the Employer’s request to do so.

The Employer went on to say that the dispute arises not from any unwillingness on its part to reward employees fairly, but from the absence of any mechanism through which the measures sought can be funded and implemented. It is the Employer’s submission that the resolution of the matters raised by the Union requires a policy and funding response at national level.

Discussion

The issue referred to the Court was the exclusion of these Workers from a national agreement concluded in April 2025 under the auspices of the WRC in respect of pay for workers in Sections 10, 39, 40 and 56 funded organisations, and a claim for a wage increase similar to that received by other healthcare assistants who are employed in Section 39 bodies, in lieu of being excluded from the nationally agreed deal in April 2025. The issue of being excluded from a nationally agreed deal by parties who are not party to this dispute is not a dispute between the Workers and their Employer and, therefore, does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court.

In respect of the claim for a wage increase similar to that received by comparable workers, the Court notes that, for the years 2024 and 2025, this Employer granted pay increases totalling 6% as opposed to 5.5% granted under the national agreement. In respect of 2026, the Court notes the Employer’s position that it was prepared to carry out a pay review in 2026, contingent on funding stability and operational capacity.

The Court recommends that the Union step down its industrial action and formally notify the Employer of same. On receipt of that notification, the Court recommends that the Employer carry out a pay review in line with the indication it had previously given to its employees and as contained in its submission to the Labour Court.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AM	______________________
06/08/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.

Page 3