PWD227

FULL RECOMMENDATION

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

PARTIES :

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REFORM
(REPRESENTED BY CLAIRE BRUTON B.L., INSTRUCTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE SOLICITOR)

- AND -

MS ANNETTE QUIGLEY

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00026893 CA-00034440-001

BACKGROUND:

2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 10 December 2021 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:-

DETERMINATION :

Determination

This is a joint appeal against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00026893 given under the Payment of Wages Act 1991(the Act).

The Adjudication Officer found that Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) were the correct Respondent and in respect of the substantive claim found that there was no breach of the Act. Annette Quigley (the Complainant) is appealing the substantive decision and DPER (the Respondent) are appealing the finding that they are the correct Respondent

Preliminary issue

The Complainant submitted that DPER are her employer for the purpose of the Act. The Complainant drew the Court’s attention to a bank statement which showed that her salary was paid into her bank account by the Department of Finance.

It was the Complainant’s submission that DPER and the Department of Finance are the same entity. The Complainant confirmed to the Court that she had worked in various Departments in the Civil service and currently worked in the Department of Education in Athlone. The Complainant went on to confirm that she reported to a HEO who was also employed by the Department of Education and that the HEO assigned work to her and approved her annual leave.

Ms Bruton BL submitted on behalf of the Respondent that they are not the correct Respondent. The Complainant never worked for DPER and DPER and the Department of Finance are two separate entities.

In 2011 legislation was enacted that separated the policy section (DPER) from the Department of Finance. The Complainant in her own submission confirms that she works for the Department of Education and therefore her claim against DPER cannot succeed as they are not her employer.

Decision

The Court having considered the submissions before it finds that DPER is not the Complainant’s Employer and therefore her claim must fail.

The Complainant’s appeal fails. The Respondent’s appeal is upheld. The Adjudication Officer’s decision is varied accordingly.

The Court so determines.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.