Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mr James Wallace

The Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland [amended on consent]

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Ciara Ruane Bank of Ireland Group Legal Services

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-00071192-001

30/04/2025

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

CA-00071401-001 DUPLICATE CLAIM WITHDRAWN AT HEARING

07/05/2025

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 30/04/2025.  The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 17/10/2025.    

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 09/09/2019 and his employment was terminated by reason of his resignation on 28/04/2025.  The Respondent is a  financial institution.  The Complainant at all material times was employed as a Business Analyst.  The Complainant was paid a monthly salary of €3940.00 gross for which he worked 35 hours per week.

The Complainant alleges an unlawful deduction in terms of the non-receipt of his 2024 annual bonus and the non-receipt of a 4% salary increase due to be paid in May 2025. 

The Respondent disputes the claims and contends there has been no breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. 

CA-OOO71192-OO1

Substantive Case – Bonus

The Complainant submits he believes he is entitled to the Group Profit Share Bonus payments for 2024.  The Complainant submits he received the highest performance rating and should have been paid €2,360.00 gross.  The Complainant submits the payment for 2024 was due to be processed in May 2025 and he did not receive it.

Substantive Case – Salary Increase

The Complainant submits all his colleagues received a salary increase in 2025 of 4% which was going to be paid in May backdated to cover January – May.  The Complainant submits he did not receive this and he believes he is entitled to it. 

The Complainant submits he raised the matter internally with HR and he also raised it with his trade union and received a response from his trade union that in order to be entitled to the payments he would “have to be still employed by BoI on 1st May to get them.”    

CA-OOO71192-OO1

Substantive Case - Bonus

The Respondent submits the Complainant issued notice of resignation on 28 March 2025 and resigned from employment on 29 April 2025.  The Respondent submits it introduced a Group Performance Scheme (GPS) for its staff in 2024. 

It is submitted the GPS is a discretionary bonus scheme which depends on business performance, how the Respondent is delivering for stakeholders and management of risk.  It is submitted the payment of a bonus is subject to terms and conditions which are communicated to employees.  It is submitted the outcome for the 2024 GPS was communicated to employees via a Group wide email on 6 February 2025 and again on 24 February 2025 such email containing a link to 2024 GPS FAQs and employees were advised that if they had any questions they could contact People Portal which is a Human Resources facility. 

The FAQs under the heading “joiners, leavers and leaves of absence” included the following:

“If I give or receive notice to leave the employment of the Group how will this affect my 2024 GPS bonus?”

“If you have given or were to give or (or receive) notice to leave the service of the Group before the bonus date and you are not a Good Leaver as defined below then you will not be eligible to receive a bonus, irrespective of your subsequent leaving date.” 

It is submitted the Complainant gave notice of termination of employment on 28 March 2025 and the bonus payment date was 23 April 2025.  It is submitted that as the Complainant had given notice to leave employment before the bonus payment date and as he did not fall within the “good leaver” category he was not entitled to a bonus payment under the terms of the GPS. 

Substantive Case – Salary Increase

It is submitted the salary pay arrangements were communicated to staff via Group wide email on 6 February 2025 and 24 February 2025 following negotiations with employee representative bodies in respect of pay arrangements for staff in Bands 1 – 3 and following a ballot agreement was reached.  The Complainant was in a Band 2 role.

It is submitted salary increases were agreed for employees in Bands 1 – 3 and the pay arrangement would be paid in May 2025 backdated to January subject to terms and conditions.

It is submitted the salary FAQs contained the following specific question:

“I am due to leave BoI Group in advance of the increase being paid, will I get the salary increase in my final salary and will it be backdated to 1 January 2025?”

“If you are in employment with BoI Group on or before 1 October 2024 and still in employment on 01 May 2025 you will receive the salary increases, backdated to 01 January 2025.”

It is submitted that as the Complainant’s last date of employment was 29 April 2025 and as he was not in employment on 01 May 2025 he was not entitled to the backdated salary increase per the terms of the salary pay arrangement. 

It is submitted the FAQ’s relating to both the GPS and the salary arrangements are negotiated and agreed with the relevant trade union.  It is submitted that not paying the bonus and backdated salary was lawful and the exercise of a reasonable discretion which is allowable under the pay arrangement and GPS on the basis the Complainant did not meet the eligibility criteria.  It is submitted the terms of payment are clear and unambiguous.

CA-OOO71192-OO1

The Relevant Law

The Law:

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (the “PWA”) regulates deductions to an employee’s wages and prohibits unlawful deductions.

Under the PWA, “wages” are defined as:

"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”.

It is well established that the payment of a bonus falls under the definition of wages as defined by the PWA. 

Section 5 of the PWA prohibits an employer from making a deduction from the wages of an employee unless:-

5. Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers

(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 PWA provides as follows:-

“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.” [emphasis added]

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 Act had been made, the WRC would then consider if that deduction was lawful.      

The PWA does not define the concept of “properly payable” and I must reach a conclusion on this by reference to objective criteria and with due deference to previous findings of the Labour Court or other authorities.

In order to ground his complaint the Complainant must show that the bonus and the salary increase were “properly payable” to him. 

The Relevant Facts

I note the Complainant issued notice of his resignation on 28 March 2025 and he resigned from his employment on 29 April 2025. 

It is common case the bonus in question was due to be paid in April payroll on 23 April 2025 and the eligibility criteria for receipt of same were set out in FAQs issued to staff earlier in the year.  I am satisfied the eligibility criteria in terms of both the bonus and the salary increase due to be paid in May 2025, as negotiated with the relevant trade union, are clear and unambiguous.  I note that if an employee has given notice to leave the service of the employer before the bonus date then he/she will not be eligible to receive a bonus irrespective of the subsequent leaving date.    

Having carefully considered the submissions, the evidence adduced at hearing and having noted the respective position of the parties I conclude the Complainant did not meet the eligibility criteria for the bonus in circumstances where there was no dispute between the parties as to the existence of such criteria and to the communication of same to staff. 

I have taken cognisance of Cleary and Others v B & Q Ireland Limited [2016] IEHC 119, it was held that bonuses are only properly payable when the conditions for eligibility have been fulfilled.

I have regard also the case of Bord Gáis Energy Limited v Niall Thomas [PWD1729] in relation to a bonus payment, where the Labour Court was “satisfied that the Complainant did not meet the criteria to be eligible for a payment under the scheme.”  Therefore, the bonus arising from the scheme was “not properly payable and no contravention” of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 occurred.  One such criterion in that case was that the complainant was required to be in employment on the day of the payment of the bonus.   The Labour Court accepted the respondent’s argument and stated that the bonus “only became properly payable if you were still in employment at the time of payment or were covered by one of the exemptions in the scheme.”

It is an inescapable fact the Complainant of his own volition chose to resign prior to the date that the bonus would be paid and the salary increase would be applied in a decision that was entirely a matter for the Complainant.

Whilst I have some sympathy for the Complainant in terms of the financial ramifications arising from the unfortunate timing of his resignation, more likely than not driven pressure that may have been exerted that he take up his new role, I am required to adjudicate on this complaint through the lens and under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.   

I find that, in failing to pay the bonus or the pay increase to the Complainant, the Respondent did not make an unlawful deduction from his wages because having applied the law as set out above to the facts, neither the bonus nor the pay increase were properly payable to the Complainant.    

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and for the reasons set out above I am unable to find the bonus and the pay increase to be properly payable.  Accordingly, I conclude this complaint as presented is not well-founded. 

CA-OOO71192-OO1

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

Bonus; resignation; eligibility criteria;