Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Valeria Butera

The Governors and Guardians of the Hospital for the Relief of Poor Lying-In Women, Dublin (commonly known as the Rotunda Hospital)

Representatives

Self-represented

Ibec

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071407-001

08/05/2025

At the time of the hearing, the complainant was employed with the respondent in the role of Medical Manpower Manager. 

The complaint referred to the Commission on 8 May 2025 under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 concerned salary scale placement when the complainant took up employment with the respondent in July 2023 as a Grade V HR Business Partner.

The complainant’s case was that she was incorrectly placed on the first point of the Grade V pay scale on commencement of employment, as incremental credit had not been applied for recognised relevant service abroad.    The complainant relied on circular letters in support of her complaint

The respondent’s position was that the complainant had received wages properly payable in line with agreed terms and conditions of employment.

The complainant was offered the role of Grade V Business Partner with the respondent in July 2023.  The complainant had considerable relevant work experience in the public sector in Argentina and, on being offered the role by the respondent, inquired about whether this would be considered for placement at a higher point on the salary scale.  This work experience had not been recognised by the complainant’s previous employer in Ireland meaning that the complainant’s Verification of Service (“VoS”) record did not reflect same. 

The response to the complainant’s enquiry was that salary is based on the VoS, grade and increment date and current grade as per the HSE consolidated pay scales. 

The complainant ultimately accepted the respondent’s offer of employment and commenced at the first point of the Grade V pay scale, the same grade held with her previous employer, as per the complainant’s VoS record.   It was while in employment and through discussion with colleagues, some of whom had received incremental credit on appointment for private sector experience, that the complainant came to understand that her previous experience should have been taken into account.  In this regard, the complainant relied on section 3 of the HSE Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment.

In February 2025, the complainant formally requested a review of her case by the Head of the HR department.  The Head of HR referred to the application of the pay and promotion rules under Department of Health Circular 10/1971 by reason of the complainant’s previous employment in the public service in Ireland and VoS record.   The complainant contested the foregoing by reference to the circumstances of her previous employment in Ireland, the previous employer having not evaluated or given credit for her previous work experience in Argentina, and the application of Department of Public Expenditure and Reform circular 08/2019.

The respondent submitted that the preliminary issue in this case must be addressed before proceeding to hearing on the substantive matter.

Preliminary issue

The complaint referred to the Commission on 8 May 2025 is that the complainant was not paid €15,645.00 on 24 July 2023.  The complaint is statute barred as the initial statutory timeframe for referral of a complaint has not been complied with, there is no reasonable cause and, even with an extension the time, the complaint is out of time.

Background

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 24 July 2023 as a Grade V Human Resources Business Partner on a permanent wholetime basis.  She was placed on point 1 of the Grade V salary scale.  

In the offer of employment on 1 June 2023, it was explained that if a candidate was transferring from another public sector employer, they should provide a Verification of Service (VoS) form to determine their point on the scale.  The complainant queried whether her experience in the Argentinian public sector could be recognised to place the complainant at a higher point of the scale.

The complainant advised they would accept the offer on the first point of the scale but was hopeful that her public service in Argentina would be recognised.

The complainant sought a review of her salary scale placement on 26 February 2025. The complainant provided a CV and supporting documentation.   At a meeting on 30 March 2025, the then interim Head of Human Resources informed the complainant that due to being appointed with a VoS from another Irish public sector employer, it was the information from that record that the respondent had to apply for salary scale placement.

The respondent was unclear as to how the sum claimed in the WRC complaint referral was calculated and how it is properly payable to the complainant.

There was no deduction from wages in contravention of the 1991 Act.  The complainant was appointed in line with established public sector pay guidelines and applicable circular letters and has been paid all wages properly payable in line with her contract of employment from commencement of employment in July 2023.  Case law in support of the respondent’s position was cited.

I reserved my position on the preliminary issue and heard from the parties on the substantive matter.

The material facts are not in dispute. 

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a Grade V Business Partner in July 2023.  She progressed in employment and took up a Grade VI role in January 2025.  At the time of the hearing, the parties maintained a mutually beneficial and productive professional working relationship. 

The issue between the parties concerns the application and interpretation of relevant HSE circular letters and the HSE Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment.

The complainant contends that the respondent should have applied incremental credit in respect of her previous relevant experience, namely almost 10 years of exclusively HR-related work in the public sector in Argentina.  The complainant relies on section 3 of the HSE Guidelines, which provide for incremental credit for previous relevant experience in Ireland or abroad.   The Guidelines refer to Department of Health circular letter 2/2011, which states the following in relation to incremental credit:-

“New appointees to any grades will start at the minimum point of the scale.  The Government has decided that all new appointees to entry grades (subject to the criteria set out above) will start at the minimum point of the new reduced scale.

However incremental credit may continue to apply for recognised service e.g. abroad.  Similarly those who leave the system will be able to reckon previous service on re-entry.”

A preliminary issue concerns the statutory timeframes for referral of a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “1991 Act”). 

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “2015 Act”) applies to this complaint under the 1991 Act, and provides in relevant part the following:-

“(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 complaint relates.

(7) …

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

In relation to the statutory timeframe, the complainant submitted that the circumstances prompting the complaint arose in February 2025, when she sought a review of her salary.  The complainant contends that time runs from the respondent’s refusal of her request. 

In response to my questions regarding the amount claimed under the 1991 Act, the complainant stated that the figure was a general calculation based on her position that she should have been placed on the 7th point of the Grade V salary scale when she commenced employment in July 2023.  The amount claimed reflects the difference between salary paid at Grade V and Grave VI and the salary the complainant maintains should have been paid up to the date the complaint was referred to the WRC.  The complaint form detailed the complainant’s commencement date in employment as the date on which the complainant should have received payment. 

The complaint concerns the complainant’s salary scale placement at the outset of her employment with the respondent in July 2023.  The complainant’s placement on the salary scale was determined by reference to the Verification of Service record provided when she commenced employment.

The issue arising here was addressed by Hogan J in HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331, which considered the similarly constructed section 6(4) of the 1991 Act, the predecessor to section 41(6) of the 2015 Act:-

“13. We may next observe that the actual language of the sub-section is clear, because it is the words “contravention to which the complaint relates” which are critical. It may be accepted that every distinct and separate breach of the 1991 Act amounts to a “contravention” of that Act. If, for example, an employee is paid monthly and the employer makes unlawful deduction X in respect of salary for every month in a two year period it might be said in the abstract that there have been 24 separate “contraventions” of the 1991 Act during that period.

14. Yet the relevant statutory language takes us somewhat further, because the key question is the “date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” In other words, time runs for the purposes of the Act not from the date of any particular contravention or even the date of the first contravention, but rather from the date of the contravention “to which the complaint relates.” As the EAT pointed out in its ruling on the matter, had the Oireachtas intended that time was to run from the date of the first contravention, it could easily have so provided.

15. For the purposes of this limitation period, everything turns, accordingly, on the manner in which the complaint is framed by the employee. If, for example, the employer has been unlawfully making deductions for a three year period, then provided that the complaint which has been presented relates to a period of six months beginning “on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”, the complaint will nonetheless be in time.

16. It follows, therefore, that if an employer has been making deduction X from the monthly salary of the employee since January 2010, a complaint which relates to deductions made from January, 2014 onwards and which is presented to the Rights Commissioner in June, 2014 will still be in time for the purposes of s. 6(4). If, on the other hand, the complaint were to have been framed in a different manner, such that it related to the period from January, 2010 onwards, it would then have been out of time.”

I am not satisfied that the complainant’s request for a review in February 2025, or the outcome communicated on 30 March 2025, constitutes an act or omission amounting to a contravention to which the complaint under the 1991 Act relates.   The subject matter of the review request related to the complainant’s salary scale placement in July 2023 and her contention that incremental credit should have been applied for recognised relevant service abroad.  I note that the complainant raised this query in June 2023, prior to commencing employment, and that the complainant confirmed acceptance of the offer of employment on the first point of the scale.

The respondent’s submission that section 41(8) of the 2015 Act does not assist the complainant is well founded, having regard to how the complaint is framed.   I also find that the complainant’s reliance on Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Circular 08/2019 is misplaced as the issues raised regarding appointment not being to an analogous grade and pay scale necessarily relate to recruitment and appointment in July 2023. 

In the circumstances, I must find that the complaint presented is statute barred.

Having carefully reviewed all documentation submitted in relation to this case, including the Guidelines and circular letters relied upon, and having regard to the ongoing employment relationship between the parties, I consider it appropriate to note the following. 

The meaning of ‘abroad’ for the purpose of awarding incremental credit for previous relevant experience is not established on the information before me, which does not assist the complaint under the 1991 Act and a determination of properly payable wages. The HSE Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment, described as a compendium of applicable terms and conditions of employment, derived from circulars, national agreements and/or legislation, provide at section 3 for incremental credit across various roles and grades.  Within that section, the references to previous service or experience vary, referring in different contexts to service in Ireland, abroad, an EU Member State and a state other than an EU member state.  Circular 2/2011 does not clarify what is meant by ‘abroad’, and I am not satisfied of the relevance of circular 5/2015 which concerns the meaning of previous public service employment for the purpose of determining the appropriate pay scale for new entrants further to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest legislation.

In conclusion, having regard to my finding on jurisdiction, I find that the complaint is not well founded. 

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act – Statutory timeframes – Payscale placement – Incremental credit – Circular letters