Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Transportation, Freight & Logistics Services Company

Representatives

John O'Sullivan SIPTU

Michael McGrath IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004005

24/03/2025

The claimant is employed with the respondent in the role of Executive Officer, Finance. He has been employed since 1996. The Complainant wishes to resolve a workplace dispute relating to his grade dating back some years.

The Employer rejects the claim being put forward based on its age and impact on a body of workers. The Employer sets out that they have gone to considerable effort to resolve the matter to date and is not inclined to further

The Worker sets out that they are entitled to an acting up allowanced or a regrading.

The Worker took on the work of a Senior Statistician on the retirement of a colleague in that position and relies upon the terms of Clerical Admin Agreement 1981 which sets out that he should receive the allowance after three weeks of taking on the duties.

His colleagues retired in 2010, and the Complainant raised the matter in 2011 and his request for acting up allowance was refused.

The Worker and his Trade Union are now requesting a recommendation that an independent grading exercise being carried out at the expense of the Employer.

Preliminary Jurisdictional Argument

The Employer sets out that the claimant is one of a group of red-circled employees whose roles have evolved over the past 20 years. It is argued that any recommendation will have a knock-on effect and encompasses a body of workers which precludes the AO jurisdiction.

The Employer has exhausted its own internal grievance process and a further appeal by an external expert, which did not support the Complainant appeal. These processes included the Complainant Trade Union

The Employer sets out that they have followed all consultation and process in conjunction with the Complainant Union and the claim is significantly aged at this point; being submitted after 13 years. The Employer went above and beyond what was expected of them involving external consultants to review the complaint. The Employer rejects a need for a further analysis which it is of the view not considered reasonable in all the circumstances.

The Circumstances of the Dispute

In 2010, following the retirement of a Senior Administrative Officer, the Worker says he took on substantial statistical reporting duties without compensation and claims he repeatedly sought an acting allowance (2010–2011, 2022) but was refused.

It is the Worker argument that the 1981 Clerical/Admin Agreement entitles him to an acting up allowance when performing higher‑grade duties for more than 3 weeks and alleges inconsistency in how acting allowances were applied in the department.

It is the Employer position that some of the retired officer’s tasks were redistributed; and the Worker never undertook the full role. Such workload redistribution is normal and occurred for other staff as well.

The Worker formally agreed to a revised role profile in 2017, which did not reflect higher‑grade duties and did not pursue the 2010–11 matter formally for over a decade, undermining the claim.

Internal Grievance & Appeal Process

An internal grievance meeting was held with the Worker, HR, CFO, and his union representative. The outcome of this process was that the Worker had no basis for regrading or an acting‑up allowance.

External Appeal (Agreed with the Worker and his Trade union)

The Worker and Union argued that the company breached Clause 10.1 of the 1981 Agreement and that the meeting notes were inaccurate. This was not the finding of that process, and the appeal was not upheld.

Referral to WRC

After the failed appeal, the Worker submitted the dispute to the WRC under Section 13. In this Trade Union sought a new independent job‑analysis review; the company refused, stating the matter had already been addressed.

Formal Employer Request

The company formally requests the WRC to dismiss the claim, arguing:

• The issue is individual, not collective.
• A full internal and external process has already occurred.
• The claim is historic (13+ years old).
• No substantive evidence supports regrading or an allowance.

The Employer sought to have the matter dismissed based on its age and the matter of statute barring by of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Act. It was not explained to me why the Employer did not simply object to the hearing on the same basis when they had the chance to do so in a situation where they need not have attended and under no obligation to comply with the recommendation of an Adjudicator.

In simple terms the matter is statute-barred dating back to 2011 where the matter has been raised and addressed, to the satisfaction of the Worker; or not.

The Employer has been earnest and accommodating in the pursuit of resolving the matter including the appointment of the external expert to hear the matter. This comes at cost to the Employer and it is completely unreasonable on the part of the Worker and their Union to expect further outlay to what is an impossible case, not just in terms of statute barring, but in the knock-on effects of a favourable decision it has a potential to impact a body of workers.

For all of the reasons above I find that I have no jurisdiction in this matter.