Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tamzin  Readett

Aer Lingus Ireland Limited

Representatives

Elaine Mettler Aer Lingus Limited

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-00068447-001

06/01/2025

The Complainant was employed as an airline pilot from 19 November 2018 until her employment ended on foot of her resignation on 23 June 2024. She is asserting that she should be retrospectively paid monies in the amount of €6,511 in respect of pay awards that were made on foot of a Labour Court Recommendation to the Respondent’s pilots.

The Complainant seeks payment of €6,511 in backdated wages from the Respondent for the period from 1 January 2023 to 23 June 2024. This amount was calculated using a standardised calculator provided to all pilots by the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA) for the specific purpose of determining owed back pay.

The claim is grounded in Labour Court Recommendation LCR23007, issued on 8 July 2024 and accepted in full by the Respondent. Under the Recommendation, pilot basic pay scales were amended with effect from 1 January 2023 and the Complainant highlighted that the recommendation makes no reference to the backdated pay being optional or discretionary.

The Complainant was a full-time pilot employed by the Respondent from 19 November 2018 to 23 June 2024, and the entirety of the claimed period falls within this employment. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the matter directly, the Respondent has not provided any justification or documentation supporting its refusal to pay the backdated amount.

The Complainant stated that evidence supplied by the Respondent — including annual performance pay statements — shows that she was entitled to the updated hourly rates, and that the Respondent’s internal systems recognise the revised rates as applicable. These rates also match the IALPA-issued pay scales which were endorsed by the Respondent.

The Respondent stated that on 8 July 2024, the Labour Court issued a final Recommendation in respect of an industrial dispute that was ongoing between Aer Lingus and IALPA, the representative association of pilots in Aer Lingus. The Recommendation was accepted by IALPA members following a ballot which concluded on 23 July 2024 and the pay increases were paid to pilots in employment in their monthly payroll on 26 August 2024.

In the context of pay, the Labour Court Recommendation of 8 July 2024 provided for the following : “That pay should be adjusted as follows over the lifetime of a pay agreement to commence on 1st January 2023 and conclude on 31st December 2026 : 2% with effect from 1st January 2023, 1.75% with effect from 1st July 2023 2% with effect from 1st October 2023 3.5% with effect from 1st January 2024 1.5% with effect from 1st October 2024 3% with effect from 1st January 2025. 3% with effect from 1st January 2026 1% with effect from 1st July 2026 Total percentage pay increase in the period – 17.75%”

The Respondent stated that the Labour Court noted the application of the pay terms to current pilots. In a letter of clarification on several unrelated queries to Forsa on 10 July 2024, the then Chairman of the Labour Court noted: “The Court made a Recommendation as regards pay growth. No engagement before the Court addressed any matter associated with the manner of application of any pay increases set out by the Court. It is the Court’s understanding as a result that any pay increase recommended by the Court will be applied in the normal manner of application of pay round increase to pilots in the employment.” The Respondent stated that this demonstrates that the clear intention and scope of the recommended pay agreement was intended to have application to pilots who were in the current employment of Aer Lingus at the time the ballot was accepted, namely 23 July 2024.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant is asserting an implied term into the Recommendation that it should have retrospective application to her as a former Aer Lingus pilot notwithstanding that she had given notice of resignation in March 2024 before the referral of this matter for conciliation to the WRC, and before the first referral to the Labour Court, and left employment before the subsequent period of industrial action in June 2024 and the subsequent hearing and consideration of this matter by the Labour Court and the IALPA ballot which followed.

At no stage during any part of the industrial engagement at the Pilot Pay Tribunal, the WRC, or in the Court was there any submission that the ultimate outcome of the pay negotiations should have retrospective application to former employees of the Company who had left employment before the ultimate outcome was determined and/or balloted on or accepted.

The Act at Section 5(6) provides as follows:

5(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.

Findings:

In A Government Department v A Worker (PWD 1945), the Labour Court stated:

“The issue to be decided by the Court in this preliminary matter is whether, at the material time, a rate of pay was properly payable to the Appellant higher than that which was actually paid to him. If no such rate of pay was properly payable to the Appellant at the material time then the Act at Section 5(6) can have no application insofar as the pay received by the Appellant was in accord with that which was properly payable to him.”

The Respondent relied on this decision to support the proposition that entitlement to wages is determined by whether a revised rate of pay had been properly payable at the relevant time.

In PWD 1945, the claim failed because the necessary procedures and approvals for an increased rate of pay had not been followed or finalised during the period the employee performed the duties in question. As the Court concluded:

“The Court finds that no procedure was followed by the Department which would create a rate of pay properly payable to the Appellant other than that which he did receive at the material time.”

Similarly, in the present case, the Respondent highlighted that no legally binding agreement on the pay increase existed during the Complainant’s employment. The pay increase only became properly payable on 23 July 2024 — when the union voted to accept the Labour Court recommendation — a month after the Complainant had ceased employment with Aer Lingus on 23 June 2024.

Accordingly, while the recommendation refers to the pay increase being “backdated” to 1 January 2023, I noted that there was nothing in the text to suggest that it was intended to apply to individuals who had already left the employment by the time the agreement was finalised. I find therefore that the retrospective application of the increase operates within the terms of the agreement, which only took effect after the Complainant’s departure.

As the Labour Court emphasised in PWD 1945:

“The total amount of any wages paid to the Appellant at the material time was not less than the amount properly payable to him throughout that period.”

By analogy, the Complainant in this case received all amounts properly payable to her during her employment, based on the rates of pay then applicable.

In light of the Labour Court’s reasoning in PWD 1945, I accept the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant is not entitled to the benefit of the backdated pay increase. As of the date her employment ended — 23 June 2024 — no revised pay rate had been agreed or implemented. The rate only became properly payable after that point. Therefore, the claim for retrospective payment is not well-founded.

I find that the complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.