ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004626
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Researcher | A Research Institute |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU |
|
Dispute:
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 - 00004626 | 01/07/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Date of Hearing: 24/02/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Summary of Workers Case:
The complainant works for a public service body on a ‘Specific Purpose’ contract on which she has been engaged since 2016 as a technologist.
Her position shouldberegularisedfollowingsometenyearscarryingouther role.Thecomplainant appliedfor a postat a higher levelandwassuccessfulinJuly2023.
Again, the employer failed to regularise the position despite the original specific purpose contract not reflecting the terms and conditions of employment originally employer for.no longer existing.
The work carried out by the complainant is ongoing and forms part of the key research strategy of the respondent.
The specific purpose of the 2016 contract identified several objectives albeit they have since expanded as programmes where extended. The complainant roles further diversified over her time within the organisation covering other duties normally associated with the grade.
We content that the work carried out by the complainant is core work and as such the contract should be regularised into a permanent contract of employment. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Programme on which the complainant works is externally funded, and the respondent is approved for funding for the Programme on a four-year rolling basis.
That funding is utilised to recruit staff on specified purpose fixed-term contracts for the duration of the Programme and in line with the specific requirements of the Programme. The respondent must secure sanction from the funder for any and all staffing requirements.
The respondent has no mechanism by which it can offer permanent contracts to staff who are employed on fixed-term contracts on externally funded projects, such as that on which the complainant is engaged. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
A complaint was referred under an employment rights statute based on the same facts as are set out above. I have dealt with the issues comprehensively in the Decision on that other complaint and accordingly, as this is an exact, parallel complaint, there is no requirement for a further Recommendation under this reference IR - SC – 00004626. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reason set out above there is no requirement for a further Recommendation under this reference CA
Dated: 30-03-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Parallel complaint |