Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniel  McChrystal

Donegal County Council

Representatives

Frank A. Murphy Frank A Murphy Solicitors

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-00074274-001

12/08/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in April 2023 as a senior Economic Development Officer. 

In his complaint form the Complainant submits that following his appointment in the County Council as a Senior Economic Development Officer (Grade 7) and taking account of his previous role as a Captain in the Defence Forces, based on Circular 08/2019 (starting Pay on Promotion) and related Public Service pay guidelines he should not have started his role with the County Council on the first point of the pay scale.  This error has resulted in a serious financial discrepancy, especially in light of his previous role and responsibilities.

The Complainant submits that section 3.2 of Circular 08/2019 states that an employee moving between analogous positions may be entitled to retain the incremental point they held in their previous role. In his case, as a Captain in the Defence Forces, his previous role is of comparable seniority and responsibility to Grade 7 in Donegal County Council.  Both roles carry significant managerial, operational, and leadership responsibilities. There is, according to the Complainant, a clear overlap between the two roles.

Given the similarities between the two roles, the Complainant believes that his position as a Captain in the Defence Forces is analogous to the Grade 7 position in Donegal County Council and as such, he should be entitled to continue his pay progression from the point at which he left his previous role.  This did not happen.

The Complainant submits that it is well established public service practice that employees are entitled to retain their previous point on the pay scale when transferring between roles deemed analogous, as long as they meet the conditions laid out in Circulars such as Circular 08/2029.  This has been confirmed by multiple sources within the public sector, where similar analogies have been applied to roles in both the Defence Forces and local government.

The Complainant wants his current pay level to be reviewed and adjusted to reflect the point on the scale to which he believes he is entitled.

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing.

The Complainant stated that when he accepted the role in the county council, he was given assurances that his pay would be increased in line with his position.  Attempts were made by him in the period between October 2024 and April 2025 to have the matter ventilated but the Respondent did not engage with his efforts; this being the case he felt he had no other option other than lodge a complaint with the WRC.

The Complainant stated that when he joined the council in 2023, he believed his previous service would be taken into account in relation to his pay point. He said he should not have started on the first point of the grade, that his 10 years in the Defence Forces should have been taken into account.

The Complainant stated that his starting point, the 1st point, was incorrect when he started. He raised his concerns within a few weeks of starting, however he did not want to rock the boat too much while he was on probation. The Complainant referred to several attempts he had made to have his concerns ventilated but the responses were slow and not productive.  

In response to questions put to him in cross examination, the Complainant agreed that he had accepted his contract of employment in March 2023, however, he had raised the issue of his pay point a number of times thereafter to no avail.  He stated that he had been trying to resolve the matter since his entry into employment with the council in 2023; his attempts became more urgent in 2024.

In closing, the Complainant’s representative stated that the facts of the case were not in dispute.  Mr McChrystal says he was given assurances on his pay. He raised the issue multiple times and he was assured he would be looked after; he has acted in good faith.  He was never informed on what circular applied to his position, he was never told his position was not analogous and so he was never given an opportunity to engage meaningfully.  He was left with no other option other than to go to the WRC.

Mr Cathal Moss gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent.

Mr Moss stated that Circular 08/2019 was not the appropriate circular in the circumstances, the correct circular is EL 05/2026.

Mr Moss stated that when the Complainant joined the council his pay was assessed using Circular EL05/2026 as every such job would be assessed.  On that basis the Complainant’s pay point was deemed to be Point 1.

Mr Moss stated that there were no records on file of the Complainant not accepting his pay point, there was nothing in writing received until he raised his issue in October 2024 with the Welfare Officer.

The Complainant’s pay was reviewed in July 2025 and it was decided that there was no reason to justify a change his pay.  The council engaged with the union on the matter.

Mr Moss stated that the Complainant had been paid in accordance with his contract of employment and there had been no deductions made to his pay.

In closing, the Respondent’s representative stated that the Complainant had started working with the council in 2023, yet his complaint was only lodged in August 2025, on that basis the complaint is out of time. He only started engaging with the council in April 2024, again meaning his complaint is outside the statutory limits on time.

The Representative stated that, the Complainant has been paid as per his contract.  His pay was appropriate at the outset and since, therefore the Respondent has no case to answer.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act states:

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

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.

From the evidence adduced it is clear that the Complainant accepted his rate of pay at the outset of his employment with the Respondent.  Since then, the Respondent has not made any illegal deductions from the Complainant’s pay, therefore there has been no breach of the Act.

The complaint is not well founded.

Contract of employment, deduction