LCR23324

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969.

BACKGROUND:

The Workers representative referred this case to the Labour Court on 15 June 2026 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 09 September 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

Mr Finnegan, representative for the Worker, submitted a section 20(1) referral to the Labour Court, which he had signed on 16 June 2026. In that form, he raised an issue about witnesses. As Mr Finnegan was neither the Worker in question nor a trade union representative of the Worker, he was informed by the Court that the Worker would need to sign the undertaking in section 5 of the form and that witness evidence is not taken in Industrial Relations cases. By email dated 23 June 2026, the Court confirmed to Mr Finnegan that it had received section 5, signed by the Worker, and that the referral was now ready to be processed.

By email dated 29 June 2026, the Court again informed Mr Finnegan that, as this was an Industrial Relations case, no witnesses were permitted and no legal entitlements would be considered, as Mr Finnegan had referenced a number of employment statutes in the referral form. Mr Finnegan confirmed by reply email that he was aware of this but thought he would share his views on those issues to provide context. The Court received hard copies of the Worker’s submission, which ran to 100 pages and related to employment rights cases and other issues that were not before the Court. No trade dispute was mentioned in the submission.

By emails dated 18 and 19 August 2026, Mr Finnegan wrote to the Court to state that the Court had filed the case under section 20(1) of the 1969 Act rather than section 13(9), and that this was a clerical error that needed to be rectified before the hearing on 9 September 2026. On 31 August 2026, the Court replied, clarifying that it had reviewed the file and that Mr Finnegan had submitted a referral under section 20(1) of the 1969 Act on 16 June 2026. All communications from the Court to him related to that referral and were based on the form he had submitted. The Court had not received any appeals against decisions of an Adjudication Officer, either in respect of an employment rights issue or under section 13(9) of the 1969 Act concerning a trade dispute between a Worker and their Employer.

On 2 September 2026, Mr Finnegan wrote to the Court, stating that the Labour Court had made a clerical error and was refusing to amend the matter, and that the issue would have to be dealt with on 9 September 2026. The Court understood this to be a reference to the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, 9 September 2026.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Court set out the above sequence of events and stated that the only valid claim before it was the section 20(1) referral concerning a trade dispute. The Court explained its jurisdiction to the parties and afforded them an opportunity to reflect on what it had said.

Mr Finnegan, on behalf of the Worker, set out how the Worker’s employment had been terminated and stated that the Worker did not believe that fair procedures had been followed.

In response, Mr O’Mahony BL, for the Employer, set out the procedures that had been followed and raised an issue concerning the Court’s jurisdiction to investigate the dispute in circumstances where the same issue had been heard by an Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the 1969 Act and no appeal under section 13(9) had been lodged.

The Court asked Mr Finnegan whether he wished to respond to this jurisdictional issue. He advised that he did not, as it was his intention to go to the High Court on these issues. The Court again reminded the parties that this was an Industrial Relations matter.

In its deliberations, the first matter the Court had to consider was the jurisdictional issue. The Court noted that an Adjudication Officer had issued Recommendation IR-SC-00005164 in respect of a referral relating to the Worker’s termination of employment and had not recommended in his favour.

The Court notes that section 13(10) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 states: “The Court shall not investigate (except by way of appeal to it under subsection (9) of this section) a trade dispute in relation to which an adjudication officer has made a recommendation.

As an Adjudication Officer has already issued a recommendation on the issue referred to the Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the Court has no jurisdiction to investigate this dispute.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AL	______________________
14/09/2026	Chairman

NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.