Complainant

Respondent

Parties

João  Pereira

Fresenius Medical Care

Representatives

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-00076630-001

21/10/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Staff Nurse from 1 March 2022 until the termination of his employment on 7 September 2025. The complaint was presented pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and concerns the Complainant's final salary payment made on 25 September 2025. The Complainant submits that he was underpaid by €1,952.23 and that he should have received his normal monthly salary of approximately €2,535.81 together with applicable holiday and sick pay.

The Complainant lodged a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 alleging that he was underpaid in respect of his final salary payment made on 25 September 2025.

The Complainant submitted that, under his contractual arrangements, he worked 92.5 hours over a four-week cycle and received a fixed monthly salary of approximately €2,535.81. He maintained that his salary was linked to his contracted hours rather than to a calendar-day calculation.

The Complainant contended that during the relevant September 2025 pay period he had been rostered to work his normal complement of shifts. He stated that three of those shifts fell during approved annual leave and that the remainder were covered by certified sick leave arising from a broken wrist. He submitted that both annual leave and sick leave were paid absences and therefore he should have received essentially his normal contractual remuneration for the period.

The Complainant argued that the Respondent incorrectly treated him as a daily-paid employee and calculated his final salary by reference to the number of calendar days between 1 September and his termination date of 7 September 2025. He challenged the Respondent's methodology of dividing his annual salary by 365 days and paying salary for only seven days.

In correspondence with the Respondent's payroll department, the Complainant repeatedly stated that he was employed on a fixed salary basis and that the Respondent's calculations ignored the practical reality of his contractual arrangements. He maintained that, if any adjustment were to be made, it should be based upon the scheduled working days within his rota cycle rather than a calendar-day calculation.

The Complainant further submitted that he had complied with all requirements relating to annual leave and sick leave and that there was no justification for departing from the salary ordinarily paid to him each month. He calculated that he had been significantly underpaid and sought recovery of €1,952.23, being the amount he alleged remained unpaid.

The Respondent denied that any unlawful deduction or underpayment occurred and submitted that all monies properly due to the Complainant were paid.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant commenced employment on 1 March 2022 as a Staff Nurse. His hours were originally 150 hours over a four-week period but were reduced with effect from 29 January 2024 to 23 hours per week, equivalent to approximately 92 hours over a four-week rota cycle. At the date of termination his annual salary was €30,429.77.

The Respondent submitted that while the Complainant's working hours were organised through a four-week rota system, the rota governed scheduling and overtime arrangements only. Salary, it asserted, was paid on the basis of an annual salary divided into twelve monthly payments, as expressly provided for in the contract of employment. The Respondent emphasised that the contract contained no provision entitling an employee to continue receiving salary after employment had terminated.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant resigned on 3 July 2025 and that his employment ended on 7 September 2025. Consequently, his final salary was calculated only up to the termination date.

The Respondent explained that the Complainant's final payslip comprised:

·       Basic salary of €583.58 for the period 1 to 7 September 2025, calculated by dividing the annual salary by 365 days and multiplying by seven days;

·       A bonus payment of €250;

·       Holiday pay of €753.02 in respect of 29.6 hours of accrued but untaken annual leave;

·       Sick pay entries of €833.69 and minus €833.69 respectively, resulting in no net adjustment;

·       A pro-rata health benefit-in-kind adjustment.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was absent due to sickness between 28 August and 7 September 2025. It was asserted that, notwithstanding certain discretionary provisions concerning sick pay during a notice period, the Complainant received the benefit of company sick pay and suffered no financial loss arising from the payroll treatment of the absence.

The Respondent further submitted that its payroll department repeatedly explained the calculations to the Complainant following his queries. While the Complainant disagreed with the methodology, the Respondent maintained that the calculations were correct and were consistent with the contractual arrangements and payroll processes applied on termination.

The Complainant stated that he was seeking compensation in respect of his outstanding wages from the Respondent. The approach to be taken when adjudicating on a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is set out in Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55, approving Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v Lacey [2007] 1 IR 478. Specifically, a decision-maker must first determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides:

“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.”

The Complainant relied on his contract, his reduced-hours arrangement from January 2024, and correspondence with the Respondent following receipt of his final payslip. He stated that he worked pursuant to a four-week cycle of 92.5 hours for a fixed monthly salary and contended that the Respondent incorrectly converted his salary to a daily rate for the purposes of calculating his final payment. He asserted that had he remained employed, his scheduled working days during the relevant rota cycle would have been covered by annual leave and certified sick leave and therefore he should have received his normal monthly salary.

The Respondent produced the contract of employment, the amendment reducing the Complainant's hours, absence records, annual leave records, payroll records and correspondence. The contract provides for payment of an annual salary in monthly instalments and contains no provision entitling an employee to salary beyond a termination date. The Respondent calculated the Complainant's final salary by reference to the seven days from 1 September to 7 September 2025 inclusive, together with payment in lieu of outstanding annual leave.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the Complainant was employed on an annual salary which was payable monthly in arrears. The contract clearly identifies an annual salary and does not provide that the employee is guaranteed payment for a complete month's salary following termination irrespective of the date employment ends.

The Complainant's argument centred on the fact that his working time was organised through a four-week rota cycle and that his salary had become associated in practical terms with working eight rostered days per cycle. However, the existence of a four-week rota does not alter the contractual position that employment ended on 7 September 2025. Once his employment terminated, there was no continuing entitlement to salary for the remainder of September unless a contractual provision created such an entitlement. No such provision was identified.

I accept the Respondent's submission that the four-week rota governed the scheduling of hours and overtime arrangements rather than creating an entitlement to salary after the employment relationship had ceased.

Having found that the four-week rota did not create an entitlement to salary calculated by reference to rostered working days, it is necessary to consider what method was properly applicable to the calculation of the Complainant's final salary payment for the period 1 to 7 September 2025. Calculation of a partial final salary payment by reference to calendar days elapsed as a proportion of the calendar year — that is, annual salary divided by 365 and multiplied by the number of calendar days worked — is an accepted and widely used payroll convention for pro-rating an annual salary on the commencement or cessation of employment, and is the default method applied across a broad range of employments where salary is expressed and paid on an annual basis. It is to be distinguished from the calculation of annual leave entitlement, which by contrast is ordinarily calculated by reference to hours or days actually worked, and was calculated on that separate basis in the Complainant's case. I am satisfied that the Respondent's application of this conventional calendar-day methodology to the Complainant's final salary payment was neither unusual nor unreasonable, and I do not accept that the Complainant's contracted working pattern, which was organised on a four-week rota for scheduling and overtime purposes, displaces this default method of calculation.

I also note that the Respondent paid the Complainant for accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. The Complainant did not dispute that he received this payment.

The essential question is whether the Complainant was entitled to a full month's salary despite his employment ending on 7 September 2025. Having carefully reviewed the contract and associated documentation, I find no contractual basis for such an entitlement. The Respondent was entitled to calculate salary only up to the cessation of employment and to pay any additional accrued contractual or statutory entitlements arising on termination.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant has not established that wages properly payable were withheld from him within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.

I find that this complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.