Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alexandru  Leonte

South Dublin County Council

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Self-Represented

Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

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-00070674-001

09/04/2025

The Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC on the 9th April 2025 wherein he claimed that on a weekly basis since the commencement of his employment the Respondent has paid him the incorrect weekly wage.

The Complainant relied on the narrative as outlined in the WRC Complaint Form and documentation and evidence submitted to the WRC on the 9th April 2025 in support of his case. He stated that when he commenced employment with the Respondent on the 4th February 2025 he signed a contract of employment which stated that his salary was €746.22 per week but that when he got his first pay slip it stated that his salary was €671.97. He queried this with the Respondent and he was informed that there was a clerical error on the contract furnished to him. He was sent a new contract to sign which he refused to do. Since the first pay date he has been paid €671.97 per week and not €746.22. He claimed that every week since the 13th February 2025 there has been an unlawful deduction from his wages.  

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant has been paid what is properly payable to him as detailed in the Qualifications and Particulars document and the contract of employment wherein it is stated that the salary to be paid is at the 1st point of the salary scale. This is what is properly payable to the Complainant and what he is paid on a weekly basis. Due to a clerical error the incorrect gross weekly pay was listed in the contract of employment initially furnished to the Complainant. This was because the grant provided to the Respondent provided for the payment for the post and the PRSI portion of the salary - €671.97 plus €74.25 which amounted to €746.22. Within two days of the Complainant commencing employment the error was identified and the Complainant was furnished with an explanation and an amended contract.

The Respondent referred to the case of IR-SC-00002701 and to the conclusion where the Adjudication Officer stated that “It is well established that a worker cannot benefit from an employer’s mistakes…”

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

Relevant Law:

Payment of Wages Act 1991

In considering whether the Complainant’s wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction as alleged, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Section 1 of the 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:

…

The above definition includes pay.  The Complainant claims he is due his wages for pay period 13th February 2025 and for each week thereafter.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act serves to regulate certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

Section 5(1) of the 1991 Act provides as follows:

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 1991 Act addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

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.

The non-payment of wages that are properly payable to an employee is therefore an unlawful deduction by the employer. 

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful.

Therefore, the question to be decided is whether the wages claimed by the Complainant were properly payable.

It was common case that the Respondent advertised the position of Community Employment (CE) Scheme Supervisor along with the Qualifications and Particulars of the role. The Complainant confirmed that before applying for the role he had sight of the Qualifications and Particulars document and that the document listed the salary details for the role as follows:

Salary

Wage: €671.97 (min) to €811.59 (max) per week

A person who is not an existing CE Supervisor will commence on point 1 of the scale for the position.

The Complainant applied for the position, was successful at interview and he commenced employment with the Respondent on the 4th February 2025. The Complainant confirmed that prior to his appointment he was not an existing CE Supervisor.

On the 4th February 2025, his first day of work, the Complainant signed the G33 form which explicitly stated that his employment was subject to the qualifications and particular of the role and a contract of employment which stated under the heading Remuneration:

Salary will be paid fortnightly by means of a credit transfer to a financial institution of your choice. Salary deductions will be made as appropriate and will include but is not limited to:

·       Statutory deductions (Income tax, PRSI, USC, Additional Superannuation Contribution)

·       Superannuation Scheme deductions

·       Deductions for overpayments

·        

Your rate of pay will be €746.22 which is the 1st point of the Temporary CE Supervisor salary scale with an increment date of 4th February 2026.

The Complainant accepted that the G33 form referred to the qualifications and particulars of the role and that both the Qualifications and Particulars document and the contract of employment stated, and he was aware, that his salary would start on the 1st point of the salary scale.

On the 6th or 7th February 2025 the Complainant received his pay slip for Pay Period 7, pay date 13/02/2025. On the 7th February 2025 he emailed the Respondent with a copy of his payslip stating that his contract of employment stated that his rate of pay was €746.22 gross per week, however his payslip contradicted this where he was paid €671.97, the 1st point on the salary scale.

The Respondent replied to the Complainant advising:

“Please see attached amended contract. The contract you signed had the wrong rate of pay. I have amended in line with Department of Social Protection guidelines, this was a clerical error, and I apologise for any confusion caused. Please can you report to HR to sign your amended contract as soon as possible.”

The amended contract stated:

Your rate of pay will be €671.97 which is the 1st point of the Temporary CE Supervisor salary scale with an increment date of 4th February 2026.

The Complainant was advised by the Respondent that the salary for the position of CE Supervisor was governed and payable by the Department of Social Protection and was outside of the control of the Respondent. Furthermore, it was explained to the Complainant that an error had occurred as the grant provided to the Respondent provided payment for the post and the PRSI portion of the salary (€671.97 plus €74.25) which amounted to the incorrect rate contained in the first contract of employment, namely €746.22.

The Complainant confirmed that he was aware that his salary would start on the 1st point of the salary scale. According to the Respondent’s representative the amended and correct contract reflected the salary as specified in the Qualifications and Particulars document and the 1st point of the salary scale and was the salary properly payable to the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that the correct and appropriate pay and what was properly payable to the Complainant was €671.97 and that this has been paid to him. 

Having considered the evidence of the Complainant and the oral and written submissions of the parties and the documentation submitted to the WRC I find that at all material times the wages which were properly payable to the Complainant were those as set out at the 1st point of the salary scale, namely €671.97.

On the basis of the foregoing I find that all wages properly payable to the Complainant were paid to him and accordingly, I find that there has been no breach of section 5 of the 1991 Act.

For the reasons set out above, I decide that the complaint is not well-founded.