LCR23320

CD/26/121

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation No. IR-SC-00004682 bearing reference numbers ADJ-00060177 and CA-00073267.

BACKGROUND:

On 15 April 2026 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:

“This worker does not meet the definition of worker in Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and therefore I have no jurisdiction to hear this trade dispute.”

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation on 26 April 2026 in accordance with section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place in Dublin on 13 August 2026.

Page 1

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker was employed by a contract cleaning company and was assigned to a client company where she worked for 29 years. She was aggrieved that she had been suspended pending an investigation into her conduct in respect of a workplace altercation on the client site and subsequently removed from the client site when other parties involved in the same altercation were not suspended and not removed.

The Worker’s position, and reason for the referral to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the appeal to this Court, was that she believed, notwithstanding she had a contract of employment with the contract cleaning company and was paid by that company with payslips identifying the contract cleaning company as her employer, that the client company was her employer. The Worker said that she had worked on the client site for 29 years and she identified that the manager on the client site was able to direct the work she did and the hours she worked which led to her conclusion that the client company was her employer. The Worker said she was relying on advice from the Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) where she said she was told, with regard to these factors, that the client company was her employer. The Worker informed the Court that the client company had investigated a complaint of sexual harassment she had made against an employee of the client company in respect of conduct which took place on the client company’s site and it would not have been able to do so if it were not her employer.

The Worker confirmed that she had made a similar referral under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, in respect of the same matters, naming the contract cleaning company as her employer. That matter is the subject of an appeal to the Labour Court.

The Employer’s Submission:

By email to the Labour Court, dated 12 May 2026, a representative of the client company communicated that it was not and never had been the Worker’s employer. This email referenced and attached an email to the WRC, dated 12 February 2026, from the Head of HR in the contract cleaning company, in which it was stated the contract cleaning company was the Worker’s employer and that it had received a similar claim from the Worker. The email thread included a further email from the client company to the WRC in which it confirmed that the Worker was not an employee of the client company but was an employee of the contract cleaning company.

Deliberations:

Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (the 1969 Act) provides that “workers” may refer trade disputes, other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or time of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers, to the WRC, and appeal a recommendation of an adjudication officer to the Labour Court.

A trade dispute is defined in section 3 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as: “… any dispute or differences between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of employment of any person and includes any such dispute or difference between employers and workers where the employment has ceased”.

A worker is defined in the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 as: “… any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract with an employer, whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, whether it be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour including, in particular, a psychiatric nurse employed by a health board and any person designated for the time being under subsection (3) but does not include—

(a) a person who is employed by or under the State,

(b) a teacher in a secondary school,

(c) a teacher in a national school,

(ca) a teacher employed by an education and training board.”

Page 2

The Worker accepts that she had a contract of employment with the contract cleaning company and not with the client company. While she was based on the client company site she was there in her capacity as an employee of the contract cleaning company and not as an employee of the client company. The extent to which the site manager could determine what she did and when did not arise in the context of an employment relationship but rather on foot of whatever arrangement was in place between the contract cleaning company and the client company in terms of the service being provided. While there are circumstances where the extent of control one party has over another may indicate an employment relationship that is not applicable here where the Worker was clearly an employee of the contract cleaning company who was not subject to this referral. That the client company investigated an allegation of sexual harassment made by the Worker against its employee is not in any way suggestive of the existence of an employment relationship between the Worker and the client company but rather arises in the context of the person against whom the allegation was made being an employee subject to investigation by their employer.

The Court may understand the Worker’s frustration regarding the difference in treatment afforded to her compared to other individuals involved in the same incident. However, in circumstances where Worker is not a worker employed by the client company the referral under section 13(9) of the 1969 Act (and the appeal therefrom) is misconceived.

DECISION:

The Labour Court is satisfied that the Worker is an employee of the contract cleaning company and not an employee of the client company who is the party named in the referral and this appeal. The Worker is therefore not a worker with an entitlement to refer a trade dispute in respect of the party named in the referral under section 13(9) of the 1969 Act.

The Court therefore dismisses the Worker’s appeal.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
AL	______________________
20th August 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.

Page 3