Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Laurence  Farrell

Meath County Council

Representatives

Dave Curran,  SIPTU

Amanda Kane,  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-00050722-001

19/05/2022

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a Retained Firefighter in November 2015.  His hourly rate of pay was €20.83 gross.  The complainant resigned from his employment on 20 December 2021.  This complaint was received by the WRC on 19 May 2022.

In January 2021 the complainant submitted a complaint of bullying to the respondent.  The HR Manager who dealt with the complaint recommended that the complainant and his Station Officer should engage with an independent facilitator to try to resolve the issues.  The complainant attended a meeting with the facilitator and claims he was not paid for attending that meeting.  The amount of pay not received is stated on the complaint form to be €41.66

The respondent’s position is that the complaint is out of time.  The complainant attended the meeting with the facilitator on 16 November 2021.  The complaint was received by the WRC on 19 May 2022.  However, the respondent has since paid the complainant for his attendance at the meeting.

The complainant was employed as a retained firefighter from November 2015 until 20 December 2021.  In January 2021 he submitted a complainant of bullying by his Station Officer to the respondent’s HR department.

The HR Manager who dealt with the complaint recommended that the complainant and his Station Officer should engage with an independent facilitator to try to resolve the issues.  The complainant agreed to engage with the facilitator and attended one meeting.  He expected to be paid for attending the meeting at his normal hourly rate of €20.83. 

The complainant’s submission is that attendance at such a meeting under the Dignity at Work Policy should qualify as working time.  The submission also states that the complainant was advised that he would be paid for his attendance by his employer.  The claim contained in the complaint form is for two hours, a total of €41.66.  The complainant’s representative at the hearing claimed the payment should have been for four hours.  It was acknowledged a payment for two hours had been made by the respondent.

The complainant submitted a complaint of bullying in January 2021.  The HR Manager dealing with the complaint recommended independently facilitated meetings between the complainant and his Station Office to try to resolve the issues.

The complainant attended a meeting with the facilitator on 16 November 2021.  The complaint was received by the WRC on 19 May 2022.  The cognisable period for a complaint is six months, that is 19 November 2021 to 19 May 2022.  Therefore, the complaint was submitted out of time.

The respondent has since reviewed the claim and paid the complainant for his attendance at the meeting.

CA-00050722-001

Complaint submitted pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Section 5 of the Act of 1991 provides:

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.

(2) … (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.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides the following concerning the submission of complaints:

(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 complaintrelates.

The complainant on the complaint claims he was not paid €41.66 that he was due for attending a mediation meeting.  The respondent states that the meeting took place on 16 November2021.

The date the meeting took place was not disputed by the complainant.  The respondent contends that the complaint is out of date as it was received by the WRC on 19 May 2022, more than six months after the date of the meeting that the complainant attended.  However, the complainant states on his complaint form that the date he should have received that payment was 25 February 2022.  There was no explanation as to why this payment would only be due to be paid three months after the date the complainant attended the meeting.  I do not find it credible that the payment would only fall due three months after the day he attended the meeting.  Equally it is not credible that the payment would have been made on the date that the complainant attended the meeting.

The complainant resigned on 20 December 2021.  It would be normal practice for payments to be made to employees who have resigned within the normal pay cycle after their resignation date.  The complaint was received within six months of the date of resignation.  I find the complaint was received within time.

The respondent stated in their submission that it had reviewed the claim and had since paid the complainant for his attendance at the meeting.  This was acknowledged by the union representative.  At the hearing the respondent’s representative stated that the sum of €41.66 gross was processed and paid to the complainant.  The claim on the complaint form was in the amount of €41.66.  I am satisfied that the complainant was paid the amount he claimed to be due to him.  I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00050722-001

Complaint submitted pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

I have carefully considered the submissions and I find the complaint was submitted within time. 

I am satisfied that the respondent has paid the complainant the amount he claimed was due to him. I find the complaint is not well founded.

Pay

Time Limit