ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053185
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aoibhinn Keogh | Dublin Airport Authority, DAA Plc |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Yvonne O' Callaghan , SIPTU Trade Union | Brendan O'Hanlon DAA (Dublin Airport Authority) |
Complaint:
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-00065007-002 | 26/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
Related Industrial Relations Actt,1991 complaint.
It is necessary to note that this Complaint was part of a lengthy Industrial Relations Act,1969 Dispute and Recommendation.
Background:
The Complaint concerned the alleged removal of Paid Breaks from the Worker as a result of a change in job roles. The Worker alleged that she was offered, for the new job, a higher rate that included Paid Breaks . This was refuted by Management as an administrative mistake at the time of recruitment. The mistake was allegedly corrected which left the Worker on a lower salary with no Paid Breaks. The Employment with the Organisation began on the 17 April 2006 and continues. The rate of pay stated by the Worker at the date of referral of the Dispute was €2,050 per fortnight for a 45 hour week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was represented by SIPTU and submitted a detailed written submission to support her Oral testimony. Her losses arising from the job offer/administrative mishaps issue were detailed. It was alleged that she was now due some €17,120 in arrears. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submitted a detailed written submission and gave lengthy Oral testimony. The complaint had been extensively Investigated and two internal Grievance Processes had not found in her favour. The Payment of Wages Act,1991 allows for the correction of genuine errors in payroll. This had happened here and the corrections were perfectly legal. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Legal Position The Payment of Wages Act,1991 - Section 5 (5) (1) allows for the following (5) Nothing in this section applies to— (a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where— (i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of— (I) any overpayment of wages, or (II) any overpayment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment, made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and (ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment,
In this case very little overpayment actually happened as the error was spotted and corrected early. 3:2 Review of evidence presented. The entire issue of this Complaint was the subject of two extensive Internal Grievance procedures and discussed at length in the Industrial Relations Act,1969 Dispute and Recommendation. On a strict Legal basis the Respondent employed complied with the Act, as per Section 5. The case has to be seen as Not Well Founded. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress of the cited Acts.
CA: 00065007-002
The Complaint is deemed to be Not Well Founded.
It fails.
Dated: 01-09-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act, Invert Overpayment of Wages |