PWD2118

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

PARTIES :

BIDVEST NOONAN (ROI) LTD
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES)

- AND -

ERITA IVANOVA

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00014770 CA-00018940-001, 004

BACKGROUND:

2. The Employer and the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 November 2021. The following is the Determination of the Court:



DETERMINATION :

Background.

This is a cross appeal by both parties of an Adjudication Officer’s,(AO) Decision under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, ‘the Act’.

Ms. Ivanova, ‘the Complainant’, began working for another company as a cleaner in 2004. In 2010 her employment transferred in a transfer of undertakings to Bidvest Noonan, ‘the Respondent’.

Employment Regulation Order, ‘ERO’, increases in 2015 and 2016 were not applied to her pay. The Respondent justified this on the grounds that the Complainant was in receipt of a pay rate in excess of the ERO rates at the time.

The Complainant lodged a complaint under the Act.

The Complaint was upheld by the AO who directed that the increases sought be paid from November 2017.

Both parties appealed this Decision.

Deliberation.

This is one of a series of similar complaints that appear, on the face of it, to relate to the same set of facts. The Court issued a Determination in Bidvest Noonan v. Eleanor Rabonsa PWD218, in the course of which case the Respondent argued that the complaint was not made in time. For the reasons set out in detail in that Determination, the Court found that the complaint was not statute barred and that the cognisable period was 5 November 2017 to 4 April 2018.

In that case also, for reasons that are set out in detail in the Court’s Determination, the Court found that there had not been an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s pay within the meaning of the Act.

The Complainant in the instant case represented herself. The Court explained to her the significance of the ‘Rabonsa’ case to her appeal and invited her to differentiate her circumstances from those of Ms. Rabonsa and/or to raise any relevant issues of law. The Complainant was not in a position to do either.

As no argument has been put to the Court in the instant case that differentiates the circumstances of the Complainant from that of Ms. Rabonsa, the Court has not been provided with any reason that could justify a different finding. Accordingly, the appeal of the Respondent is upheld and the Complainant’s appeal is not upheld.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.