Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Public Body

Representatives

Fórsa Trade Unoin

 Internal HR

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 - 00004113

14/04/2025

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in 2007 and he has brought this dispute in relation to his remote working arrangements.

At the outset of the hearing, the Adjudication Officer noted that she knew the Employer’s internal legal representative in a professional capacity. This is not uncommon in the Irish legal community and colleagues frequently encounter one another in different fora.  However, as there is no personal connection it is not considered to be a conflict of interest and the hearing proceeded on that basis.

This dispute was heard together with that in IR-SC-00004114. While hearings of this nature are not open to the public, it was agreed by all parties that they should be heard together as they concern substantively the same issue.

The Worker submits that the dispute arises from the requirement to forfeit his long‑standing contractual remote status in order to progress to a promotional role. The Worker states that both he and his colleague were originally recruited through an open competition, at a time when the Employer sought to widen its recruitment base by offering home‑based roles. The contract at that time clearly designated home as the work base, and for many years the Employer benefited from this arrangement without raising any concerns about productivity, performance, or operational impact.

The Worker explains that, over time, the Employer ceased recruiting remote workers of this grade and did not create any remote equivalent for the next senior grade. As a result, the Worker in the remote role became effectively “stuck”, with progression contingent on surrendering the remote status. The Worker submits that this was never signalled at the point of recruitment and represents a significant and unfair obstacle to career development. The Worker emphasises that losing remote status carries a substantial financial burden, including the loss of travel and subsistence entitlements and the high personal cost of long‑distance travel to Dublin. The Worker argues that the financial impact erodes any benefit of promotion and creates inequity when compared with colleagues who can progress without losing contractual conditions.

The Worker further states that, despite extensive engagement with management over several years—including contributing to the Employer’s developing blended working policy—no viable solution was offered to allow workers of his grade and with remote status to progress while retaining their contractual entitlements. The Worker highlights that the Employer’s evolving practice now allows many workers, who were never formally remote workers, to work predominantly or entirely from home. This, they argue, demonstrates the feasibility of carrying out the promotional role duties remotely and undermines the Employer’s assertion that the promotional role must be office‑based.

The Worker contends that the Employer has failed to address the inequity between staff who were contractually remote and those who have since been allowed considerable work‑from‑home flexibility without any contractual basis. The Worker describes the Employer’s stance as creating constructive obstruction to progression, exposing workers with remote status to punitive financial loss and forcing them to choose between career stagnation and the forfeiture of long‑established contractual rights.

The Worker also notes that established public‑service principles—such as red‑circling or financial compensation where contractual conditions are altered—were ignored, despite repeated proposals by the union to explore such solutions. The Worker maintains that the Employer did not engage meaningfully with these proposals, nor did it offer any alternative remedy for the loss of contractual terms.

In summary, the Worker submits that the loss of their remote status has resulted in significant financial detriment, unfair treatment relative to comparable colleagues, and the erosion of terms that formed a core part of their employment contract. The Worker seeks either the retention of their remote‑based work location on a red‑circled basis or, alternatively, appropriate financial compensation for the loss of this contractual entitlement.

The Employer submits that no recommendation should issue in favour of the Worker. The Employer acknowledges the Worker as a valued colleague but states that the claim has no basis in contract, policy, or equity.

In 2024, following an internal competition, the Worker was promoted to the next grade in the organisation. The Employer emphasises that the Worker now receives all the pay and entitlements of that role and that the Worker’s contractual place of work is the Employer’s office. In line with current practice, the Worker works remotely four days per week and attends the office one day per week.

The Employer outlines the decision‑making processes and operational environment in which the Worker previously and currently works. In his previous role, files were assigned based on complexity and workload with a requirement to attend site visits, prepare reports, and collaborate with colleagues. The Worker’s current grade has additional leadership and mentoring responsibilities and operates within teams that require regular coordination. The Employer states that the increasing complexity of the work necessitates greater collaboration across the organisation, and this collaboration is supported by the weekly office attendance requirement.

The Employer explains that the Workers previous remote status was a role created in 2002 solely to address recruitment and geographic coverage needs at that time. Only two such workers remain in that role with that status. The Worker’s current grade has never existed on a fully remote basis. The Workers previous remote grade receives specific additional allowances and travel and subsistence benefits due to their home‑based status and their distance from the office. These allowances, the Employer states, are unique to that historic scheme and do not apply to the Worker’s current promotional grade.

The Employer’s core position is that the Worker is not entitled to retain remote terms and allowances after taking up the promotional role. The Employer notes that the promotional role posts have always been designated as office-based roles, and the Worker accepted the new contract on this basis. The Employer confirms that technology and management structures now allow hybrid work arrangements, but the position remains that the Worker’s current grade is headquartered in the office and he cannot receive travel and subsistence for commuting, which is expressly prohibited under national policy and EU law.

The Employer argues that granting the Worker’s claim would create significant inequity, as other colleagues in the same grade as the Worker —some of whom also live considerable distances from the head office—do not receive such payments. This includes colleagues who had the same former grade as the Worker and who were promoted but accepted the new promotional terms. The Employer submits that such differential treatment would undermine good industrial relations, create inequitable outcomes, expose the organisation to numerous follow‑on claims, and have serious financial consequences for a publicly funded body.

The Employer stresses that the Worker was not red‑circled on promotion, nor was there any agreement that the remote conditions could be retained on promotion. The Employer considers the weekly office attendance requirement to be reasonable, essential to the functioning of the organisation, and beneficial to the Worker’s professional role.

In conclusion, the Employer submits that the Worker’s claim should not succeed. In the Employer’s view, there is no contractual or policy basis for carrying over terms associated with a previous grade; doing so would create inequity; and it would adversely affect operations, costs, and industrial relations. The Employer also notes that modern hybrid working practices already provide significant flexibility across the organisation and that there is no intention to alter the current arrangements.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (as amended) states as follows:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

 (3)(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled- (i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and (ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

The role of a rights commissioner is now carried out by Adjudication Officers in the WRC and this is how this dispute has come to me.

I note however, in particular, that the above section prevents me from considering disputes that are connected with rates of pay of a body of workers.

The Labour Court has consistently taken the view that an Adjudication Officer should not propose or impose a solution in circumstances where doing so would have wider implications beyond the parties before them, or where the Adjudication Officer lacks jurisdiction to determine such matters at first instance.

In Tesco Ireland Ltd -and- A Worker (LCR23151) the Court stated:

“Section 13(2) provides:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.”

This Court, in its decision in Shannon Airport Authority v A Worker AD1388, decided:

“The Rights Commissioner Service was primarily established to investigate cases of an individual character which prior to its establishment would have occupied the Labour Court’s time unnecessarily. Claims which by their very nature and character have broader implications are inappropriate for the Rights Commissioner Service and are dealt with by the Labour Court. The 1969 Act provided a stipulation that issues concerning such matters as rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays are issues which can have broader implications and are consequently not issues appropriate to the Rights Commissioner Service. In all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the appeal before the Court concerns issues related to rates of pay and concerns a body of workers acting in concert. It is a claim which if conceded could potentially have broader implications for others. On that basis the Court is of the view that it is precluded by the terms of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 from hearing the case.””

The Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction in that dispute on the basis that any decision of the Court would have the potential to affect the pay of a body of workers.

The Worker in this dispute asks that any recommendation is considered a red circling of the Worker’s previous contractual terms and therefore specific to them. The Employer says that any recommendation of this nature would inevitably affect both workers who had previously held the same remote status as the Worker in this dispute as well colleagues now in the same grade as the Worker who live a considerable distance from the head office.

The Employer’s argument that any recommendation in the Worker’s favour would have wider implications for other colleagues is persuasive. Further, as this matter was heard alongside another dispute of essentially the same nature, it is clear that the issues raised extend beyond an individual grievance and relate to a broader group of workers. In circumstances where any recommendation could affect a body of workers, I am satisfied that I lack jurisdiction to issue a recommendation in this dispute, in accordance with section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (as amended).

Industrial Relations – Remote working – body or workers – jurisdiction