LCR23247

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00051663 (CA-00063436, IR-SC-00002617).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 26th February 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 21st January 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. Considering all of the foregoing, I recommend both that the Worker carefully reflects on my analysis above and recognises as well as accepts both that he has been compensated more than appropriately in respect of the project on which he was engaged and that he is employed at the appropriate grade, in respect of which he is also well compensated”.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th April 2026.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Worker of Recommendation IR-SC-00002617 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s claim that he is entitled to additional compensation for a project he was engaged on between 2010 and 2012 and that his current grade does not reflect the work he is currently doing and he should be re-classified to a higher grade. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the Workers claim. At the start of the hearing the Court reminded the parties that this was not an employment rights case nor was it a case concerning the breach of a collective agreement as such a case would need to be taken by a party to the agreement.

 The Worker provided the Court with a detailed submission running to 25 pages and 164 paragraphs. As the detail in the first 18 pages were a historical overview it was agreed to take that part of his submission as read.

 The Worker submitted that he should receive further compensation for a project he was involved in between 2010 and 2012 known as the CND project. He was given to understand that his role in the project would be recognised and appropriately remunerated in line with previous work. This did not occur. Towards the end of the project, management proposed to make two long standing allowances he had pensionable. He understood this to be an interim step as previously he had received a lumpsum for an earlier project he had been involved with. It was his submission that he was not informed until 2020 that the pensionability of the allowances was conditional on him continuing carrying out the duties for which he received the allowance. This was not communicated to him in 2014. The Complainant’s representative submitted that he was looking for a one-off payment to reflect his work in the project.

 In relation to his second claim he is seeking to be paid on the Newscaster grade as he has been carrying out duties that would warrant same since 2018. It is his submission that he is in a unique position in terms of hours and workload, and this needed to be recognised. He also raised some issues which he believed were contrary to existing agreements and supported his claim to be paid at the higher rate. The Worker’s representative stated that he was looking for a practical recommendation that addresses his concerns and indicated that this was not a technical grading complaint, but a reflection of how the Worker felt he had been treated.

 The Employer submitted that the Worker is employed as a Multimedia Journalist (MMJ). These complaints have been processed through the internal grievance procedure and not upheld. In respect of the first complaint the Worker has been compensated by the making of two of his allowances pensionable and in respect of his second claim he is on the correct grade of MMJ and inline with that grade and his other colleagues on that grade he receives an Extra Hours Liability Allowance of €1053 per annum. He is also in receipt of a Long Service Increment allowance, a Special Responsibility allowance and an Additional Responsibility allowance totalling €9459 per annum.  The Complainant first raised these issues with the Employer in July 2022 at which point one of his complaints was ten years old.  He has exhausted the internal procedures, and his claims have not been upheld.

Discussion and decision

The Court notes that one of these complaints is historical and that nothing seems to have happened between 2014 and 2022 when his first claim referencing a period 2010 to 2014 was formally raised with the Employer. The role of the Court in an Industrial Relation case is to try and assist in the resolution of a dispute between a Worker and his Employer. In circumstance where it took the Worker ten years after the event to raise an issue this does not in the Courts view meet the criteria of a dispute requiring the Courts input. However, in the interest of clarity the Courts decision is that it finds no merit in this claim.

 In respect of the second claim this is a defacto regrading claim.  The Worker had the support of his Trade Union while processing his claim thought the internal grievance procedure and other than not agreeing with the outcome the Worker raised no issue with the process followed. The Court notes the Employer position that Newscaster roles are advertised and competed for and that the skill set required is different to that of a radio news reader. It was therefore open to the Worker to compete for such a post if he wished. Talking all of the above into account the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.

Decision

The Court having taken into consideration the written submissions and oral submissions on the day of the hearing cannot recommend concession of the Workers claims

The Appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
JNF	______________________
11/05/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Julie Nicholl Flood, Court Secretary.