ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012793
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Technology Company |
Representatives |
| Eversheds Sutherland Eversheds Sutherland |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00016899-001 | 16/01/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant filed a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, on 16 January 2018. Her complaint related to supposed unlawful deductions which she stated the respondent made in the context of a severance agreement with the respondent. A submission from the respondent was received on 5 March which contained, among other documents, the severance agreement between the parties. This agreement expressly precluded the complainant from making a complaint under a number of statutes, including the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The agreement was signed by both the complainant, and the complainant’s solicitor. The complainant therefore had legal advice before entering into the agreement. The complainant received her outstanding salary, pay in lieu of notice, and severance pay of €30,000. In light of this situation, I formed a preliminary view that I might have no jurisdiction in this matter, as any potential claims between the parties had been compromised in what I see as a validly concluded contract. I wrote to the parties on 5 March to set out this view and to advise that this would be the first issue I would be looking at. The parties attended for hearing on 12 March 2017 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the hearing of the complaint, the complainant accepted that she had compromised any future claims against the respondent. She also accepted that the tax deductions which applied to the payment of the contracted sum were legal and not an unlawful deduction of wages within the meaning of the Act. The complainant was anxious to explain that she had brought the within complaint because she had misunderstood these positions, especially with regard to the taxation of part of her payments, and that she had not brought the claim gratuitously. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepted the complainant’s explanations as regards her motivation for bringing the complaint, but maintained that the valid severance agreement between the parties precluded me from hearing the matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the within complaint was based on a misunderstanding and brought in good faith on the part of the complainant. Nevertheless, the valid severance agreement entered into between the parties, with the complainant availing of independent legal advice, means that the complainant had waived her right to bring the within complaint in July 2017, and that I therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate it. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the voluntary severance agreement concluded between the parties on 18 July 2017 means that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the within complaint. |
Dated: 14th June, 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991 – voluntary severance agreement – waiver to bring cases under a number of statutes, including the Payment of Wages Act – no jurisdiction. |