Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eve  Taft

Student Campus Limited (amended on consent)

Representatives

Self-represented

 Yasin Efty Bhuiyan, CEO/Director

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00066237-001

24/09/2024

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent as a teacher on 3 April 2023.

On 24 September 2024, the Complainant referred her complaint to the Director General of the WRC pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Respondent rejects the claim.

The Complainant submits as follows.

On 23 September 2024, the Complainant was given a verbal warning for not attending an unpaid teachers' meeting. The Complainant was also informed that if she missed any more unpaid meetings, disciplinary procedures would be followed. These meetings occur during the Complainant’s lunch hour and originally happened weekly but were reduced to monthly in March 2024 in an effort to stamp out the complaints being raised by members of staff.

The Complainant submits that she explained to the Director of Studies (‘DOS’) that she was not available to work while off the clock, but she was told that last summer's raise accounted for unpaid hours and she was given a verbal warning.

In summer 2023, staff were given a one euro per hour raise and told that teaching preparation time, CPDs, and meetings were no longer paid, but the meetings and CPDs would remain optional.

In January 2024, the teachers were told that meetings were now mandatory. At the first mandatory meeting, the Complainant raised the issue that unpaid work cannot be mandated, and the DOS told the Complainant that the situation was beyond her power. The Complainant and her colleagues wrote an email to the CEO and the COO. They responded two months later stating that the raise in the hourly wages compensated for being asked to do unpaid work. The DOS reduced the frequency of the meetings, and most employees stopped going, instead using their lunch breaks to eat and attend to personal matters.

This continued until September 2024, when the teachers received an email that that month's meeting was mandatory. The Complainant did not attend the meeting, instead electing to read over the minutes to obtain the necessary information.

The following Monday, the Complainant was called into the office and given a warning. The Complainant explained that she did not work unless the work is reflected on her timecard. She was told that since meetings are in her contract, she must attend them. The Complainant explained that a wage worker cannot be required to work out of hours, and if their contract specifies such, the contract is void under the National Minimum Wage Act. The Complainant as told that "it isn't illegal."

The Complainant then walked to the COO's office and filed a complaint. He told her to send him an email, which she did, outlining the fact that if the warning was not rescinded, the Complainant would be complaining to the WRC.

The Complainant submits that as a teacher, she regularly works out of hours grading and preparing materials, and her dedication to her job was not in question. She finally objected due to the blatant illegality, disrespect to herself and her colleagues, and ethical issues associated with mandatory unpaid work.

The Complainant’s complaint can be condensed to the following: she was being penalised for refusing to do unpaid work which violates the National Minimum Wage Act and the right to disconnect (Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Right to Disconnect on page nine: "examples include being regularly expected to work through lunch or other breaks").

Submission of 8 April 2025

On 8 April 2025, the Complainant wrote to the WRC alleging that an incident occurred that shebelieved to be in retaliation for her complaint.

The Complainant submitted that on 8 April 2025, she was given an unscheduled observation by the Senior Teacher and called down to the DOS's office to discuss apparent complaints from students, with the Senior Teacher present. The DOS provided some vague feedback that the Complainant’s writing on the board was "bunched up" and that she would be switching classes with another teacher. The Complainant stated that she would prefer to have been told about the situation, rather than surprised and moved one week into the new cycle. The DOS said she did not do so because she "feels uncomfortable" around the Complainant. The Complainant asked if they could discuss the issue, and the DOS said that she felt that way because the Complainant called her abusive in her complaint (the Complainant could not remember the exact wording at the time, but she believed the DOS was referring to the line in which the Complainant referred to her colleagues attempting to avoid "abusive behaviour"). The Complainant submits that the DOS also stated that the Complainant "misrepresented the facts" in the complaint. The Complainant asked if she wished to discuss it, and she said that she did not. The Complainant asked if there was anything else, bid the DOS and the Senior Teacher good night, and left. The Complainant submits that her colleagues in the hallway said the door was aggressively slammed behind her.

The Complainant submits that it is not typical for teachers to be moved classes so quickly and for such small complaints. At this point, the Complainant assumed that it was in direct retaliation for her complaint. The Complainant also believes that the DOS was attempting to intimidate her and undermine her statement by saying she "misrepresented the facts." The Complainant still stands by the statement and consider it the truth to the best of her knowledge.

Submission of 15 May 2025

On 15 May 2025 the Complainant furnished an additional submissionto address the Respondent’s written submission.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent did not address the core of her complaint i.e. that she was disciplined for not attending a meeting during an unpaid break.

With regard to the matter of her contract, the Complainant submits that meetings, like all other duties, are outlined in her contract of employment and are thus understood to occur during her working hours. By the Respondent’s logic, she could be required to attend a meeting or teach a class at midnight on a Sunday because meetings and lessons are included in her contracts. This is not the general understanding of how contracts of employment are interpreted. The Complainant is entitled to be paid at the hourly rate for the time she works.

Additionally, the summer 2023 raise has been brought up multiple times. It was the only raise she received during her tenure at Student Campus. On a mathematical level, it has nothing to do with the dispute about the meetings. An hourly raise applies to working hours. It does not entitle the employer to free work outside of normal working hours. After the raise, the Complainant should have been paid €4.37 for each 15-minute meeting and € 17.50 for each hour-long CPD. The Respondent asserts that the staff were part of the decision to implement the raise. This is untrue. It was announced by the DOS, not discussed. In that regard, the Complainant relies on the minutes of the meetings in July and August 2023.

The Complainant submits that the raise was met with positivity because at the time, meetings and CPDs which occurred outside working hours were optional; therefore no one minded that they would no longer be paid. The Complainant was not aware that several months later, she would be informed that she had agreed to work outside of hours by accepting a €1 per hour raise. Indeed, only after January 2024 did the DOS push the issue of meetings being mandatory and only in September of 2024 did she penalise some of those who did not work through their unpaid lunch break.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s calculations are not relevant to this fact. At any point this problem could have been eliminated by reverting the meetings to their original optional status, but the DOS and Mr Bhuiyan, the CEO/Director did not even acknowledge this option, despite multiple teachers pointing it out.

The Complainant submits that it is not correct that other teachers did not take issue. In fact, many other teachers signed the Complainant’s January 2024 email to Mr Bhuiyan. He responded, not to all, but to the Complainant individually.

To address the time stamps Mr Bhuiyan has recorded, the Complainant did respond to work emails during working hours. The DOS often emailed and texted teachers during working time, and they were expected to respond. This was typically done while students did activities in groups, similarly to teachers’ admin work (lesson plans, updating test scores, etc.) which teachers did not receive paid prep time for. When the Complainant first discussed the issue with Mr Bhuiyan over email, she agreed to close the matter as no meaningful progress was being made. She continued taking her lunch break as scheduled. Only when she received disciplinary sanction for doing so did she contact the WRC.

The Complainant submits that it is somewhat disingenuous to say that she accepted the situation, as she simply elected not to take a pay cut in lieu of being remunerated for her working hours and ended a conversation that was going in circles.

The Complainant submits that she was unsure why her teaching ability was being called into question, as this is not a case of constructive dismissal (she chose to leave of her own accord), nor does it have any relevance to the complaint she raised.

The Complainant’s claim is that she was disciplined for refusing to perform work during her unpaid break and has nothing to do with her teaching. Since she takes pride in her work, she would address the issue. She was never appraised of any complaint that she "attended to personal matters" in class. The DOS never once, via email or in person, brought these alleged complaints up with the Complainant. The claim that she did so is entirely and completely false. The accusation is also inaccurate.

Most of the requests to change class were very typical teaching/learning mismatches which are common in any language school. If an email search was performed, as the DOS did, for any teacher, a proportionate number of similar emails would be found. In fact, students sometimes moved to the Complainant’s class because of a mismatch with another teacher or because they had enjoyed her previous classes.

The Complainant relies on her 2024 observation feedback from the Senior Teacher at the time and on the most recent observation, from the current Senior Teacher. No complaint about the Complainant attending to personal matters in class was ever raised by any of the Complainant’s Senior Teachers, any student, the DOS, or Mr Bhuiyan. The Complainant takes great issue with accusation, as it is a blatant falsehood and an attack on her dedication to her job.

The Complainant submits that another matter Mr Bhuiyan raised in the submission that is unrelated to the matter at hand is that of the "unplanned observations." The Complainant’s understanding is that the DOS is currently conducting unplanned observations in what she can only assume is an attempt to save face. When unannounced observations were first introduced in September of last year, it was understood that they would happen to all teachers. To the Complainant’s knowledge, she was the only teacher who received one at that time.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of the Complainant

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant said that her contract provided that she would get a pay increase every year. When the DOS told staff they were getting a pay raise, they were excited. However, they were told that meetings would be unpaid though voluntary. In January 2024, the Complainant received an email that the meetings were mandatory. The meetings took place at a lunch break on a weekly basis. She brought it up with the DOS and wrote a letter on behalf of 14 teachers to Mr Bhuiyan. The DOS agreed to reduce the frequency of meetings to once a month.

The Complainant then received a response to her letter (addressed to her only not to all the teachers). The Complainant felt she went in circles. It was suggested that she could take a pay reduction and revert to being paid for the meetings. She did not want that. The Complainant said that in September 2024 she did not attend a meeting and got a disciplinary warning for the non-attendance. There were 3 other meetings: on 16 May, 6 June and 1 August 2024 but she did not attend them.

The Complainant said that if she did not receive a disciplinary sanction that is now on her file, she would not be here. She said that the reason she made a complaint to the WRC is not about her but in general about the treatment of teachers by the Respondent. 

The Complainant said that her email to the Respondent was signed by other teachers.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of Mr Byrne, a teacher

Mr Byrne said that he and other teachers signed the Google doc that was sent to Mr Bhuiyan by the Complainant on behalf of the teachers.

The Respondent submits as follows.

Background of the Case

The Complainant was employed as an English teacher at Student Campus, located at 17–19 Patrick Street, Limerick from 3 April 2023 until her resignation on 2 May 2025. Throughout her employment, the Complainant carried out her duties without any formal issues.

In July and August 2023, during a staff meeting, the topic of a salary increase was raised, as is customary every six months depending on the financial position of the company.

In response, the Director of Studies (‘DOS’) proposed an adjustment to the pay structure. At that time, teachers were receiving payment for an additional four hours per month to cover responsibilities such as lesson planning, attending meetings, and performing extra duties. The DOS suggested removing these four additional paid hours and instead implementing an immediate €1 increase to the base hourly rate which would include lesson planning, attending meetings and Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’).

This proposal was discussed and unanimously agreed upon by all teachers, including the Complainant. From September 2023, the revised structure was implemented — teachers received a €1 hourly raise while the additional four hours were removed from the monthly salary. Calculations showed that this change resulted in a net gain of approximately €50 per teacher per month, even after the removal of the extra hours.

It was made explicitly clear during the meeting that this increases covered tasks such as lesson planning, CPD sessions, and staff meetings. The Complainant did not raise any objections at the time, and there was a general sense of satisfaction among the staff, who welcomed the change and the resulting increase in take-home pay.

The Complainant continued to receive her salary under the agreed structure. However, in January 2024, she raised concerns via email regarding additional staff meetings, stating that she believed they should be paid separately. The Respondent responded to her concerns at that time. Despite the reply, the Complainant remained dissatisfied and subsequently decided to lodge a formal complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

Defence of the case

The Complainant was a dedicated and capable teacher during her tenure at Student Campus. However, the Respondent received multiple student complaints indicating that the Complainant was occasionally engaged in personal activities during scheduled class hours. The Director of Studies addressed these concerns with her on some occasions, particularly in relation to her participation in CPD sessions and teachers' meetings. Despite efforts to engage constructively, the Complainant was often unresponsive and appeared to perceive professional feedback or administrative actions as personally motivated. Her employment concluded upon her resignation, which took effect on 2 May 2025. Furthermore, the Complainant did not attend any teachers' meetings or CPD sessions from January 2024 until the conclusion of her employment, with the exception of one meeting held in November 2024. Although she was present at that particular meeting, she did not sign the official attendance sheet.

On 22 January 2024 at 15.25, the CEO received an email from the Complainant expressing her concerns regarding mandatory staff meetings. She addressed the email to the CEO directly and cc’d several other teachers. But none of the teachers communicated regarding the same matter.

On 22 January 2024 at 15.25, the Complainant was scheduled to be teaching at the school, and the time at which she sent the email falls within her designated working hours, and she was paid for these minutes.

At the time, the CEO was on holiday from December 2023 until 20 February 2024. The CEO responded on 7 March 2024 addressing the Complainant’s concerns in detail.

The Complainant's main concern was that the mandatory staff meetings were not being paid. In her response, the CEO explained that according to the Respondent’s previously agreed policy—discussed and accepted by all teaching staff during the August 2023 staff meeting—the €1 increase in the hourly wage covered all additional responsibilities. This included time spent on lesson planning, CPD activities, and staff meetings. It was clearly communicated and agreed that this revised rate would replace the previously paid additional four hours per month.

Since the implementation of this policy, the Complainant, like her colleagues, had been receiving the financial benefits of the new arrangement.

On 7 March 2024 at 14.16, the Complainant sent a follow-up email in which she claimed that the arrangement regarding unpaid staff meetings was illegal, as teachers were not being separately compensated for their attendance.

On 7 March 2024 at 14.16, the Complainant was scheduled to be teaching at the school, and the time at which she sent the email falls within her designated working hours and the Respondent paid for these minutes.

In response to her concerns, the CEO replied on 7 March 2024 by clearly stating the following:

"Should any teacher find the current terms unacceptable, the CEO is open to reverting to our previous agreement, which involved a €1 reduction in the hourly rate. Subsequently, we can address your proposed redundancy."

In the same email, the CEO further clarified and offered a constructive approach:

"As a suggestion, we can revisit our initial proposal if you believe the current arrangement is inequitable. My understanding is that the Student Campus salary structure covers staff meetings, lesson planning, and related duties, and this was agreed upon by all teachers during the August 2023 meeting when the hourly rate increase was implemented. Unfortunately, additional payment for these meetings cannot be processed at this stage, as it has already been accounted for in your salary. Please let me know how you wish to proceed."

This response was made in good faith and in line with the Respondent’s open-door policy, which encourages feedback and allows for flexibility where appropriate. The arrangements in question were implemented with full transparency and prior agreement from all teaching staff, including the Complainant.

On 7 March at 14.53, the Complainant send another email raising the same question regarding her dispute of unpaid work. 

On 7 March 2024 at 14.53, the Complainant was scheduled to be teaching at the school, and the time at which she sent the email falls within her designated working hours and the Respondent paid for these minutes.

In response to the Complainant’s concerns, the CEO made a genuine effort to resolve the matter by proposing a fair and transparent solution. The CEO responded to her via email with the following message:

"I am amenable to revisiting our previous option from August 2023, and I am prepared to initiate this process. This is my proposed resolution to bring closure to this matter. As I understand it, all aspects were encompassed within the raise, and upon agreement from the teachers, we implemented the decision. If you feel that your input was not considered and that there was no consensus among the teachers, I see no alternative but to revert to our previous terms from August 2023. Kindly share your understanding on this matter, and upon receipt of your response, I will proceed accordingly, starting from this month."

This response was made in good faith, and within her role as Director, the CEO clearly communicated her willingness to address the Complainant’s concerns and proposed a practical resolution.

In reply, the Complainant responded on 11 March 2024 stating:

"I obviously cannot speak for her colleagues or indeed anyone but myself. If her only choice is between a wage reduction and continuing to be required to attend unpaid meetings, I will choose the second option in order to close this matter, as no meaningful progress is being made through communication."

The Complainant’s statement confirms:

·       She acknowledged the proposal.

·       She chose not to revert to the previous system.

·       She wished to close the matter.

Despite this, a formal complaint was submitted to the WRC, which the Respondent believes is unnecessary and unfounded given the above record.

This response indicated the Complainant’s decision to accept the existing arrangement rather than revert to the previous pay structure. As such, the CEO considered the matter resolved based on the Complainant’s written acceptance, and no further objections were raised by the Complainant following that exchange.

 Response to WRC complaint – the Complainant

In July and August 2023, the Director of Studies at Student Campus proposed a revised salary structure to all teachers during scheduled staff meetings. The proposal was to streamline all teacher responsibilities—including class hours, lesson planning, staff meetings, and CPD (Continuing Professional Development)—under a unified hourly rate. The school offered a €1.00 per hour wage increase in exchange for removing the additional 4 CPD hours previously paid separately.

This change was presented transparently and agreed upon by 100% of the teaching staff, including the Complainant. At the time, the Complainant did not raise any objections. She continued to work under this arrangement from September 2023 without complaint until January 2024.

The following table outlines the comparison between the Complainant’s previous salary arrangement and the new consolidated salary structure:

Month       Working Hrs   Hourly Rate    CPD Hours    Holiday Pay Gross Pay             Arrangement

July 2023   119                   €16.50             3                          -                     €2,013.00        Old / Separate CPD Payment)

Aug 2023   135.5                €16.50             4                          6 hrs                     €2,400.00 Old / Separate CPD Payment)

Sept 2023 136.75             €17.50             Included             -                     €2,393.13        New Arrangement

Comparison for September 2023:

·       Old Arrangement:

·       Regular Pay: 136.75 hrs × €16.50 = €2,256.38

·       CPD Pay: 4 hrs × €16.50 = €66.00

·       Total Gross: €2,322.38

·       New Arrangement:

·       Regular Pay: 136.75 hrs × €17.50 = €2,393.13

·        Total Gross: €2,393.13

Net benefit to the Complainant:

Under the new consolidated system, the Complainant received €70.75 more than she would have under the old system. Despite this improvement, the Complainant raised concerns in January 2024 about attending mandatory meetings. In response, the CEO of the school proposed that, if she was dissatisfied with the new arrangement, she could revert to the previous terms— i.e., a lower hourly rate and separate CPD payment. The Complainant declined this offer and chose to continue under the current system.

The Respondent submits that from September 2023 to April 2024 the Complainant was scheduled to teach additional lessons at the Technology University Shannon. The Respondent added 3 hours on top of her regular hours for preparation of her lesson plan at TUS, though at the same time other teachers were not getting any extra hours.

Recent communication of the Complainant to the WRC regarding unscheduled classroom observation

Unscheduled classroom observations are a standard component of the Respondent’s internal quality assurance procedures at Student Campus. These observations are conducted periodically to ensure teaching standards are maintained and to provide constructive feedback to our academic staff.

In light of student feedback and as part of our ongoing commitment to quality improvement, the school scheduled several unscheduled classroom visits to multiple teachers. One of these visits included the Complainant’s class, which was observed by a Senior Teacher on 8 April 2025. Also, two other teachers have been observed. Following the observation, the Complainant was invited to the Director of Studies' office to receive formal feedback, in accordance with the Respondent’s internal policy.

It is important to clarify that these observations were conducted fairly, without singling out any individual teacher, and several staff members were observed around the same period. However, the Complainant interpreted this visit as being personally motivated, which the Respondent disagrees with. At no point were the actions of the DOS or Senior Teacher outside the bounds of the Respondent’s established procedures.

The Respondent would reiterate that unscheduled classroom observations and subsequent feedback sessions form an essential part of its academic quality framework. The feedback provided was professional, constructive, and aligned with school policy. Any suggestion that the actions of school leadership were personal in nature is unfounded and inaccurate.

Legal and procedural considerations

Payment of Wages Act 1991: The new payment structure was discussed openly, agreed upon by all staff, and implemented transparently. There was no unlawful deduction. 

Conclusion and request for dismissal of complaint

The Respondent has acted transparently, lawfully, and in good faith in all dealings with the Complainant. The complaint appears to stem from a misunderstanding or dissatisfaction after several months of silence and after the Complainant benefiting from the new structure. The Respondent therefore believes that the complaint is unreasonable and unfounded, especially given that:

·       Mutual agreement existed and was implemented fairly.

·       The Respondent made efforts to accommodate the Complainant’s concerns by offering a return to the previous structure.

·       No formal objection was made until several months after the implementation.

·       No unlawful deduction occurred.

·       The Complainant declined a fair alternative and confirmed closure.

At the adjudication hearing, Mr Bhuiyan, on behalf of the Respondent said that the meetings were always mandatory but paid for. Mr Bhuiyan exhibited the Complainant’s payslips evidencing a payment for same.

Mr Bhuiyan said that the rate of pay is based on the company’s financial situation and is assessed every 6 months. In July 2023 a decision was made to include all meetings, CPD and preparation time in one package. A €1 raise was applied to teachers’ hourly rate to include all components.  There were no concerns raised until January 2024. On 22 January 2024, an email was received from the Complainant. Mr Bhuiyan responded on 7 March 2024 and explained the matter. No other teacher engaged.

Mr Bhuiyan said that the proposal was discussed with all the teachers and accepted by them. The teachers suffered no financial loss.

This matter was referred to the Director General of the WRC pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 the provisions and scope of which are limited by the clear definitions and purpose as set out in the Act. Accordingly, I must confine my adjudication to the requirements of that Act.

The Relevant Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides the following definition of wages:

"wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice…

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides as follows:

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 address the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

In Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 MacGrath J considered Section 5 of the Act as follows:

36. The provisions of s. 5(6) of the Act of 1991 were considered by Finnegan P. in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v. Lacey [2007] 1 I.R. 478. A Rights Commissioner had found in favour of the respondents holding that the cessation of service pay amounted to an unlawful deduction, which was upheld by the EAT. It was argued that the EAT should address the question of remuneration properly payable to an employee before considering the question of a deduction or whether a deduction was unlawful. Finnegan P. concluded at p. 482:-

“I am satisfied upon careful perusal of the documents relied upon by the respondents that the same cannot represent the agreement or an acknowledgement of the agreement contended for but rather contain a clear denial of the existence of any such agreement. No other evidence of an agreement was proffered. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the Employment Appeals Tribunal erred in law in failing to address the question of the remuneration properly payable to the respondents, such a determination being essential to the making by it of a determination. Insofar as a finding is implicit in the determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal that the appellant agreed to pay to the respondents service pay and a long service increment, then such finding was made without evidence and indeed in the face of the evidence: I am satisfied that there has been no deduction of pay from the respondents within the terms of the Act of 1991 but rather their remuneration has been unilaterally increased by the appellant making a payment which recognises their long service in excess of that which was payable prior to the 18th September, 2002. In either case there has been an error or law. Accordingly I allow the appeal.”

The High Court made it clear that, when considering a complaint under the Act, an Adjudication Officer must first establish the wages were properly payable to the employee before considering whether a deduction had been made. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Act had been made, the Adjudication Officer would then consider whether that deduction was lawful.

It is for the Complainant to make out that the wages payable to her during the period encompassed by the claim are properly payable to her under the Act.

The Labour Court in Hannigans Butchers Limited v Jerko Anders Hresik Bernak DWT 194 held as follows;-

This Court in Melbury Developments Ltd v. Arturs Valpeters EDA0917, in a case under the Employment Equality Acts, put it clearly in stating, ‘Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn’ and that ‘The Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred’. While these observations of the Court reference specific requirements under the relevant legislation, the sentiments are equally applicable to the exercise of rights under other Acts covering employment law. Indeed, it is a well-established general rule of evidence to quote Palles CB in Mahony v. Waterford, Limerick and Western Railway Co., (1900)2 IR 273, that ‘…it is a general rule of law that it lies upon the plaintiff to prove affirmatively all the facts entitling him to relief…’

Time limits

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 as amended prescribes the applicable time limits as follows.

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

This complaint was referred to the Director General of the WRC on 24 September 2024 and, consequently, the cognisable period falls from 25 March 2024 to 24 September 2024.

In their respective submissions both parties referred to matters that fall outside the scope of my investigation pursuant to the Act. At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant clarified that in so far as the scope of the Act is concerned, her claim is that, following the change in pay arrangements, she was not paid for her attendance at mandatory meetings.

There was no dispute at the hearing that four meetings took place in the cognisable period: on 16 May, 6 June, 1 August and 19 September 2024. It was also not disputed that the Complainant did not attend any of these meetings. Regardless of the dispute between the parties as to the validity of the implementation of the new pay structure and the requirement to attend the meetings, as the Complainant did not attend the meetings, she did not establish that any sums were properly due to her in respect of the said meetings. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the payment was properly payable to the Complainant. Accordingly, I do not find there was a deduction contrary to section 5 of the 1991 Act in respect of the attendance at the meetings.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

Properly payable – payment of wages