Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karol  Oskroba

Sean Guinane, Ceilings and Partitions

Representatives

Karol and Mateusz Oskroba

Hugh Hegarty ,Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015

CA-00076198-001

09/10/2025

On 9 October 2025, the Complainant, a Construction worker submitted a complaint that he had not received terms and conditions as laid down by the Sectoral Employment Order (SEO), specifically pension contributions valued at €19, 209, October 2017 -November 2025.

The Complainant prepared the requested submission and attended the hearing in the company of his son. An Interpreter in the Polish language was provided at the complainant’s request.

The Respondent operates a construction business. He attended the hearing in the company of his wife and his representative, Hugh Hegarty, Peninsula.

In light of the longevity and live nature of the working relationship, I offered the parties time to seek to resolve the matter.

While it is clear that the parties benefitted from this time, the Complainant has sought a decision in the case. I am happy to engage with the case for the parties and furnish that decision.

The Complainant and the Interpreter both took the affirmation to accompany their evidence to hearing. The Respondent, Mr. Guinnane availed of the oath .

The Complainant has recorded two periods of employment with the Respondent business, the latter and more relevant to this case commenced on 23 March 2015 as a Dry liner.

It was the Complainants case that his employer had failed to implement the terms of the SEO in relation to pension / death in service benefit.

On his foundation complaint form, the complainant outlined that he had not been aware of his entitlement to pension under SEO, when he approached the respondent seeking a pension scheme in November 2024.

Dialogue commenced with pension advisors as the complainant had retained an earlier pension 2005-2009 from this employment.

No Agreement followed and the claim was submitted to the WRC.

On the chronology, the complainant submitted that he fell within Category A of the Construction SEO and had been wrongly omitted from the pension scheme. He reflected that he became aware of the SEO terms on 30 August 2025.

The Complainant submitted an expansive dossier of his pay slips which captured information on “expenses “and his eventual inclusion into the CWPS pension scheme.

The Complainant pointed to a shortfall in pay under SEO, but he had not submitted this on his complaint form, and it altered the claim made.

The Complainant entered the Construction Workers Pension Scheme (CWPS) in October 2025 and is satisfied by his inclusion.

He is pursuing a retrospective inclusion to 2017 as he remains dissatisfied by the delay in his inclusion in CWPS. He has sought compensation for the delay.

Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant outlined that it was unaware of the SEO restoration in 2017. He had not been provided with a contract until recently and had yet to return it.

He told the hearing that he was paid €22.31 per hour and had lost out in pension contributions with interest but was unable to explain just how this interest was generated at hearing.

He understood that he had previously been enrolled in the SEO pension 2005-2009, which was denied by the Respondent at hearing.

He gave evidence on his pursuance of SEO pension from December 2024. He concluded that the historical company pension “was not a good match “.

During cross examination, the complainant denied that he had forfeited a return to pension for an agreed payment of €50 in expenses from 2017.

He put his delay in actioning the claim down to “I didn’t know “.

The Parties spent an extended period working collaboratively seeking a resolution in the case

The Respondent operates a Construction business and works with the complainant daily.

Mr Hegarty on behalf the Respondent explained that the Respondent had not managed to submit a written submission , but was present to engage with the claim .

The Respondent had conceded the CWPS pension scheme and ancillary benefits ,but were not in a position to meet the full claim for retrospection .

Evidence of Seán Guinnane, the Respondent.

Mr Guinnane recalled that the complainant had worked with him on two separate occasions as a Construction worker.

He recalled that he had provided a private pension, not the CIF pension, during the complainant’s earlier tenure, inclusive of death in service and 13 weeks sick pay. The Complainant was an active member of that pension, which ceased when he left employment. Annual benefit summaries still issued following cessation of the pension in 2009.

The Respondent outlined that this pension had previously been challenged at the Labour Court but was withdrawn.

The complainant left to work in Norway prior to returning to work on a part time basis in 2015.

During the second phase of employment, the complainant agreed to receive a private expenses payment, which the respondent viewed as a substitute for the previous pension payment. This coincided with the period where Unions were chasing a restoration of the SEO.

He gauged the complainant’s acceptance of this offer when he responded with “Thanks very much “.

The Respondent agreed that discussions on pension had surfaced from November 2024 onwards. The Complainant had explored a mechanism for adding to his previous pension through mobility, however, this was not possible.

Various options were discussed on pension, but the complainant had not engaged on the proposed balancing exercise of a three-year model of retrospective CTW pension.

Employer €12, 791 Employee €8, 585 over 3 years.

Mr Guinnane pointed out that the complainant was paid

During cross examination, Mr Guinnane was asked why he prolonged payment of expenses if it was to serve as a trade-off for pension? He replied, he was advised to maintain the payment up until the case came to hearing.

I have been requested to reach a decision in this case which constitutes a claim for access to the Construction Workers Pension Scheme (CWPS) as provided for by Sectoral Employment Agreement, 2017.

The Complainant has been enrolled in this scheme since October 2025, and he is pursuing a retrospective arrangement 2017-2025.

He lodged his claim on 9 October 2025 before the WRC.

In reaching my decision, I have had regard for the Complaint form of 9 October 2025, the supplementary submission from the complainant and evidence adduced by both parties at hearing.

I had requested that the respondent provide some supplementary details on the previous pension scheme, but I did not receive this. I had made an earlier attempt to secure a written submission from the Respondent prehearing, which did not bear fruit.

Sectoral Employment Order, SEO SI 455/2017 – SI 207/2023 – 2024 .

Chapter 3 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment)Act, 2015 details the framework on which an SEO is built. This is a legally binding Sectoral Order specific to a particular economic sector, in this case, the Construction Sector.

 It is from Section 23 of this Act that my jurisdiction in this case is drawn.

The Supreme Court in NECI v Labour Court [2021] IESC 36, provides a helpful insight into the Constitutional validity of the SEO.

The process starts with petitioners to the Labour Court from either Trade Unions or Comprehensive Representative Bodies operating within the economic sector of construction.

The Court notes that all of the interested parties appearing before it made sub missions to the effect that the introduction of a Sectoral Employment Order 8 [455] would, within the meaning of section 16 (2) of the Act of 2015 have a beneficial effect on the sector. Having considered the application in the context of section 16 of the Act and having considered the written and oral submissions and all of the evidence before it, the Court decided to uphold the CIF application in this regard and recommend the introduction of a Sectoral Employment Order. Recommendation The Court recommends that the Minister introduce a Sectoral Employment Order for the Construction Industry as defined below.

A recommendation for a sectoral employment order may provide the following for the workers of a class, type or group, namely:

• (a) 

a minimum hourly rate of basic pay that is greater than the minimum hourly rate of pay declared by order for the time being in force under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000;

• (b) 

not more than two higher hourly rates of basic pay based on length of service in the economic sector concerned, or the attainment of recognised standards or skills;

• (c) 

minimum hourly rates of basic pay for persons who have not attained the age of 18 years; enter employment for the first time having attained 18 years; having entered into employment before attaining the age of 18 years, continue in employment on attaining that age, or have attained the age of 18 years and, during normal weekly working hours, undergo a course of study or training prescribed under regulations and the rate of pay is reduced in accordance with the National Minimum Wage Act 2000;

• (d) 

minimum hourly rates of pay for apprentices;

• (e) 

any pay in excess of basic pay in respect of shift work, piece work, overtime, unsocial hours worked, hours worked on a Sunday, or travelling time when working away from base;

• (f) 

the requirements of a pension scheme including a minimum daily rate of contribution to the scheme by a worker and an employer; and

• (g) 

the requirements of a sick pay scheme.

Disputes Resolution:

Most relevant for this case, the process of disputes resolution is underpinned by a mandatory trial of resolution at workplace level prior to referral to the WRC.

A recommendation shall include procedures that shall apply in relation to the resolution of a dispute concerning the terms of a sectoral employment order. A recommendation may provide for the amendment or cancellation of a recommendation.

“The grievance or dispute shall in the first instance be raised with the employer at local level with a requirement to respond within 5 working days. Notice in writing pf the dispute shall be given by the individual concerned or his trade union to the relevant organisation representing employers or to the employer directly.

If it is not resolved, it shall be referred to the Adjudication Services of the WRC”

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 defines the cognisable period for this complaint as 10 April 2025-9 October 2025.

As I listened to the parties explain how they both viewed the circumstances of this dispute, I noted that this was a live and thriving employment distinguished on certain facts from Joseph Lennon v Kenplast, November 2025, ADJ 58839, where the complainant was on long term sick leave in the midst of an analogous claim.

The Respondent was proud of his earlier pension scheme, now closed. He was proud that it had bucked the trend for that time pre-2009.

The Complainant is a deferred beneficiary of that scheme and receives annual benefit statements. The Complainant leaned heavily on his son and Interpreter at hearing, but overall, I found his narrative very reticent. I would have preferred to see the complainant aligned to a representative body as he had clearly missed out because of this. SEOs, their challenges, application and successes have been centre stage in Construction for many years now.

I would prevail on the complainant to engage with the respondent on his proposed contract of employment.

It was the complainant’s evidence that the complainant sought access to a pension scheme from November 2024. By his own admission and regrettably, he was unaware of the provisions of the SEO.

I am not persuaded by the Respondent submission that the complainant earned more than the SEO rate on an hour-to-hour attendance basis.

The Respondent has embraced the SEO on pension, death in service and sick pay scheme since the first augmentation on the 9 October 2025, pay slip. This co incided with the date of claim.

I find that the complainant is eligible for SEO terms as he is a worker participant in the Construction Sector.

It is a material consideration that the complainant spent a number of months seeking information on pensions on the open market to explore the viability of portability of his existing pension pot.

It is regrettable that both parties did not land on the SEO sooner.

It was during August 2025 that he learned about the SEO Pension, CWPS and followed this up on 28 September 2025, when he sought on what’s app.

1 Progress with setting up CWPS

2 He had missed out on contributions and benefits

3 Death in Service / Sick Pay

4 I want to sort this out as soon as possible, including addressing the missed contributions and ensuring full SEO compliance going forward.

I accept that this what app constitutes an individual grievance under the SEO Disputes Resolution procedure and lies within the cognisable period permitted in the claim. I cannot identify any earlier correspondence that satisfies the SEO disputes resolution rules.

The matter was resolved going forward into October 9, 2025, pay slip, inclusive of all benefits requested. (Death in service and sick pay scheme)

The Complainant sought full retrospection to October 2017.

I gave the parties some time to seek whether they could work out a mutually agreeable resolution based on the approaches made by the Respondent to the CWPS and the proposal for rebalancing they proposed.

I gave the parties an extended time period to reflect on this.

On resumption, I inquired from both parties whether the CWPS proposals were sufficient to resolve the dispute? Both parties indicated the proposals were suitable for resolution.

I have been requested to furnish a decision in this case.

I find that the parties’ submissions on the payment of extensive expenses outside of the SEO is not a matter I can decide on. I request the parties engage directly back at based on this matter, if necessary.

In relation to my powers under Section 23 of the Act, I find that the complainant was wrongly excluded from the SEO Pension, Death in Service and Sick Pay scheme during the cognisable period allowed for this claim.

I find that the parties have resolved the claim going forward and it is the matter of a look back that divides them.

The CWPS has made a viable proposal to capture an element of the look back period. The Parties have accepted this proposal detailed in the above narrative.

In that I find his claim to be well founded

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 requires that I make a decision in accordance with Section 17 of that Act.

I have found the claim to be well founded. The Complainant has been enrolled in the CWPS and ancillary benefits since his date of claim. This is in complaince with the Construction Sector SEO.

In accordance with my powers under Section 23 (2) (b) I order the Respondent to execute the CWPS proposal to cover the look back period of 3 weeks as accepted by both parties at hearing. Both parties will carry their respective liability .

This is to be concluded by 31 December 2026.

Access to SEO pension (CWPS) ancillary benefits