SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision ADJ-00025188.
On 18 May 2020, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: -
“I recommend that the complainant accept the Respondent’s categorisation of her role together with the corresponding pay grade.”
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Decision to the Labour Court on 10 June 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 24 November 2020.
It appears to the Court that the parties are disagreed as to the factual reality of the work which the Claimant has been carrying out during the period encompassed by her claim which is the ten years from 2010 to 2020. The Claimant contends that the work she carried out over that period and which she still carries out is the work of a Multi Task Attendant. The Respondent submits that this is not the case and in particular that the Claimant is employed as a domestic worker with no personal care responsibilities at the level required of a Multi Task Attendant as a day to day feature of her employment.
In addition, the Respondent submits that the Claimant does not hold FETAC qualifications at the level required to carry out the role of Multi Task Attendant. The Claimant contends that she does hold such qualifications.
The Claimant contends that she signed a contract as a Multi Task Attendant along with seven other people in 2010. The Respondent submits that neither the Claimant nor the seven people referred to by her signed a contract of employment in 2010 but rather were engaged at that time in the paperwork necessary to confirm that their pre-existing contract of employment was, from that time, a contract of indefinite duration.
The Court is unable to establish the factual matrix surrounding the matters in dispute. Instead it is clear to the Court that the background to this trade dispute features a very concerning disagreement between the employer and the worker as regards the work responsibilities assigned to the worker by the employer over a period of years and currently. It is less concerning but nevertheless surprising that the parties cannot agree whether, as a matter of fact, the Claimant holds FETAC qualifications necessary to occupy the role of Multi Task Attendant.
The Court notes the confirmation of the parties at the hearing of their willingness to progress this trade dispute by the conduct of an assessment of the factual realities of the situation. The Court therefore recommends that the parties engage in an assessment of the factual reality as regards the work responsibilities assigned to the Claimant over the years and currently by reference to the work responsibilities normally assigned to Multi Task Attendants employed by the Respondent in the location. The parties should also conduct an assessment of the FETAC qualifications of the Claimant.
The parties, having conducted these assessments, should resolve the within dispute by reference to the factual realities of the job role assigned to the Claimant over the years and currently and of her qualifications.
The Court so decides
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary.