ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054668

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Elizabeth Collins	Department of Education

Representatives

Conor McDonald ASTI

Ray Murphy, Primary Payroll Section

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-00066796-001	02/09/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

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:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and three witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. Cross examination was facilitated.

Although the issue of appropriate notice of the hearing was raised by the respondent, the matter proceeded to hearing following some discussion.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted that she should have been paid in accordance with the post-primary payscale. She worked 21 hours and was only paid for 21 out of 25 hours rather that 21 out of 22 hours as she put forward.

In evidence she conceded that she completed a Primary Teachers Appointment form

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submitted that the complainant completed a Primary Teacher Appoint form and was paid accordingly and that that she was paid her wages without unlawful deduction.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant conceded that she completed a Primary Teacher Appointment form that was sent to the Department for the payment of wages. The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid the amount that was properly payable in accordance with the documentation submitted.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence submitted, I find that the complainant was paid amounts that were properly payable according to the documentation submitted to the Department. I find that the complaint is not well founded.

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.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 08-05-2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

Payment of Wages – not well founded.