Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Public Service Worker

A Public Service Employer

Representatives

Des Courtney, SIPTU

A Senior Executive Officer

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 - 00004854

01/08/2025

The Worker, a long-serving public sector employee who transferred to the current Employer, sought recognition of prior service for pay purposes. Following policy developments, the Employer indicated that revised arrangements could apply, leading to prolonged engagement on the issue. The Worker deferred implementation pending a more favourable calculation and continued to pursue the matter over a long period of time. At the point of retirement, the issue remained unresolved.

The Employer maintains that the Worker’s prior service was assessed in line with the policy in place at the time and that a reasonable offer was made during employment, which the Worker declined. It submits that the more favourable arrangements introduced later were not retrospective and that the matter was not progressed further prior to retirement. The Employer contends that it is not appropriate to revisit the issue post-retirement, particularly given the earlier rejection and the lapse of time.

This submission concerns a claim brought by the Worker under the Industrial Relations Act regarding the application of revised salary arrangement to his time with his previous employment with another public service employer before joining the current employer.

The Worker served for several years before joining the Employer. In 2011, the Employer informed the Worker that this prior service could not be credited, as it pre‑dated the Employer’s effective date for recognising such service.

After this date the employer was subject to updated guidance changing the application of revised pay arrangements to the Worker situation and from that date the Worker   pursued the matter.

Worker/Worker Position

The Worker states that his entitlement is not disputed, only the method of calculation.

• The Worker pursued this matter over a protracted length of time and faced significant delays despite policy changes that should have benefitted him.
• The earlier communication from the Employer clearly confirmed an intention to grant revised pay arrangements, which the Worker argues should now be honoured.
• The Worker asserts that it would be unreasonable for the Employer to deny the pay arrangements entirely on procedural grounds.

Outcome Sought

The Worker requests that the Adjudication Officer find in favour of the Worker and recommend that the Employer apply revised arrangements retrospectively.

Introduction The Worker recently retired after commencing employment in the early 2000’s having transferred from another public service employer

Background The Worker sought recognition of prior service for payment purposes. The Employer made an offer based on the policy then applicable, but the Worker did not accept it and sought a more favourable calculation. The Employer maintained that the more favourable arrangement was not retrospective. The matter was not progressed further before the Worker retired, and a later request to accept the earlier proposal was declined.

Employer Position The respondent submits that a reasonable offer was declined during employment and that the matter was not revisited until post-retirement. It maintains that such matters are ordinarily determined at the outset of employment and that, in light of the earlier refusal and the Worker’s retired status, it is not appropriate to reconsider the issue.

Conclusion The respondent contends that the complaint is late and lacking in merit. It submits that no legitimate expectation arises following the earlier rejection and subsequent delay and seeks dismissal on both procedural and substantive grounds.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I fully appreciate the position of the parties and commend the representatives in their approach to resolve the matter.

Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, I note in particular the highly persuasive and carefully articulated submissions advanced on behalf of the Worker and the Employer, which cogently set out the history of the matter, the evolving policy framework, and the prolonged efforts made to resolve the issue.

While there remain clear difficulties regarding the late complaint, I am satisfied that the circumstances presented are exceptional and extend beyond the ordinary. In particular, the combination of protracted engagement, shifting administrative positions, and the unresolved status of the matter at the point of retirement distinguishes this case from the norm.

In those specific and unusual circumstances, and having regard to the equitable considerations arising, I consider it appropriate, on a red circled and strictly limited and case-specific basis, to recommend a resolution.

Accordingly, I recommend that:

• The Employer pays the Worker the sum of €15,000.00
• This payment be made on a once-off, non-precedential and strictly confidential basis; and
• The Worker accepts this sum in full and final settlement of the claim.

This recommendation is made having regard to the particular facts and the quality of the submissions from in this case and is strictly confined to the particular facts of this case and should not be relied upon as establishing any general principle or precedent.

Non-binding recommendation

Equitable considerations

Exceptional circumstances

Non-precedential