Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Development Association

Representatives

Dernot O'Loughlin, Alpha Employment Representation Services

 N/A

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00005898

17/12/2025

The Worker stated that she suffered a significant loss of earnings because increment progression ceased in 2010, she was excluded from subsequent pay restoration arrangements, and her long-standing travel expense reimbursement arrangement was discontinued in October 2025.

The Worker stated that she commenced employment with the Employer in August 2006 and was appointed at Point 2 of the applicable salary scale. She contends that, under the normal operation of the incremental salary system, she would have progressed annually through the scale and, allowing for the period during which public sector increments were frozen, should have reached the maximum point of the scale by approximately 2016.

The Worker stated that she remains substantially below the top of the scale and estimates that this has resulted in a significant ongoing loss of earnings.

The Worker asserted that the suspension of increments in 2010 effectively halted her progression through the salary scale and that no mechanism has subsequently been put in place to restore the lost incremental advancement. While general national pay increases have been applied, she stated that these increases have not addressed the underlying issue, namely that she has remained at a much lower point of the scale than she would have occupied had normal incremental progression continued.

The Worker further stated that pay restoration measures were introduced for many Section 39 employees following the FEMPI-era reductions. She maintained that, although other employees benefited from these arrangements, she did not receive the benefit of any such restoration process. In her view, this has compounded the financial impact of the increment freeze and has left her in a substantially less favourable salary position than would otherwise have been the case.

In addition, the Worker disputed the Employer's treatment of her travel expenses. She received travel expenses on occasions when she was required to commence her working day at a prison. On those days she travelled directly from her home to the prison rather than first attending her normal office location and was reimbursed for that journey. She stated that she did not claim travel expenses when travelling to her designated office location.

The Worker stated that this arrangement operated consistently over many years and became an established custom and practice within her employment. She stated that this arrangement ceased in or around October 2025 following the Employer's application of its travel and subsistence policy. She maintained that the change has resulted in a reduction in the reimbursement of expenditure necessarily incurred in carrying out her duties and contended that she should continue to receive travel expenses in the manner previously applied.

Accordingly, the Worker seeks recognition of the loss arising from the absence of incremental progression, her exclusion from the pay restoration arrangements, and the reduction in travel expense reimbursements following the change in how the Employer applies its travel policy.

The Employer stated that, following the financial crisis in 2010, salaries across the organisation were reduced and increments were frozen for all employees in line with sector-wide measures then in force. The Employer stated that increments have never been reinstated within the organisation and that no employee has benefited from normal annual incremental progression since that time.

The Employer stated that the Worker's role is funded through a different funding stream from most other posts within the organisation. They explained that when a pay restoration process was subsequently introduced for certain publicly funded workers, the Worker's role fell outside the scope of that arrangement because it was funded under a separate funding mechanism. The Employer stated that no equivalent restoration process was established for workers funded through that mechanism.

The Employer maintained that the Worker's exclusion from the pay restoration process resulted from the funding structure attached to her role and was not a matter within the Employer's control. They further stated that, notwithstanding the absence of pay restoration, the Worker received nationally agreed pay increases once the necessary funding approval and resources became available.

The Employer further stated that it is a grant-funded organisation operating within strict funding arrangements and that it cannot independently introduce increments, restore lost salary progression, or increase salaries beyond approved funding provisions. They stated that they have received no funding to support the reinstatement of increments and that salary increases have been confined to approved national pay measures.

In relation to travel expenses, the Employer denied that any unlawful deduction was made from the Worker's wages and stated that travel and subsistence arrangements are governed by the organisation's established travel policy. The Employer stated that any travel arrangements previously applied to the Worker were not consistent with the approved policy and that, from October 2025, the policy was applied uniformly.

Under that policy, where an employee travels directly from home to a temporary work location, reimbursement is calculated by reference to the lesser of:

1. The distance from the employee's home to the temporary location; or
2. The distance from the employee's normal office to the temporary location.

The Employer stated that the locations attended by the Worker for the purposes of her duties constitute temporary work locations and that the current method of calculating travel reimbursement is fully compliant with the policy. They contended that the application of the policy ensures consistency, fairness and equity across the workforce and that no deduction from wages has occurred.

While acknowledging the Worker's dissatisfaction arising from the absence of pay progression, her exclusion from the pay restoration process and the revised calculation of travel expenses, the Employer maintained that these matters arise from funding arrangements and the application of existing policies rather than from any unfair or improper action on its part.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

(i)                  Salary

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I note that the first issue in dispute is the Worker’s salary position relative to colleagues performing comparable work within the organisation, specifically her exclusion from the pay restoration afforded in full to those colleagues.

The Employer accepts that the Worker did not benefit from that restoration and attributes this to the fact that her post is funded through a different government department to that of her comparators. I accept that this disparity arose from differing funding mechanisms rather than any decision consciously taken by local management, and I accept the Employer's evidence that it has, over a sustained period, actively engaged with the relevant funding Department in an effort to have the anomaly addressed, without success. I am satisfied that the Employer has exhausted the avenues reasonably available to it at local level and that responsibility for resolving this matter now rests squarely with the funding Department concerned.

I find that the Worker, who has given some twenty years of service and performs work of equivalent value to that of colleagues within the same organisation, continues to be paid materially less than those colleagues for a reason wholly unconnected to her duties, responsibilities or performance. I find that she has suffered, and continues to suffer, an ongoing financial disadvantage through no fault of her own, and that the funding Department's failure to date to engage constructively with the Employer's representations on her behalf is not an acceptable basis for allowing that disadvantage to continue indefinitely.

I have considered whether a more direct recommendation — for example, directing the Employer to pay the salary differential itself — would be appropriate. I am satisfied that it would not. The Employer is a grant-funded body operating within the limits of its approved funding, and I accept the Employer's evidence that it has no discretion to increase salaries beyond what is funded. A recommendation directing the Employer to fund the differential from its own resources would accordingly ask it to do something it has no capacity to do. The appropriate remedy is therefore to require the Employer to formally escalate the matter to the body with actual control over funding, namely the relevant Department.

I recommend that the Employer write formally, within two weeks of the date of this recommendation, to the relevant funding Department, enclosing a copy of this recommendation and requesting a substantive response, within four weeks of that letter, confirming whether funding will be approved to bring the Worker's pay into line with that of her comparators, backdated to the date from which the pay restoration was applied to them.

In the event that the funding Department does not provide a substantive response within the four-week period specified, or responds without confirming whether funding will be approved, I recommend that either party may revert to the Workplace Relations Commission for a further recommendation on this matter.

(ii)                 Travel Payments

I note that the central issue in dispute is not whether the Worker is entitled to claim travel expenses when required to attend a prison, but rather the basis upon which those expenses should be calculated.

I noted that, for a significant period, where the Worker commenced her working day at a prison rather than at her normal office, she was reimbursed for travel from her home directly to that prison. I accept that this practice operated over a lengthy period and that the Worker consequently developed a genuine expectation that reimbursement would continue on that basis.

I also note, however, that the Employer has a written travel policy which specifically addresses circumstances in which an employee travels directly from home to a temporary work location. The policy requires reimbursement to be calculated using the lesser of the distance from the employee's home or from the employee's normal office to the temporary location.

While the historic arrangements relied upon by the Worker may have differed from the strict application of the policy, I am satisfied that the Employer is entitled to apply a clear and reasonable policy governing travel expenses, provided that it is applied consistently and uniformly to employees.

I do not find a sufficient basis to recommend that the Employer depart from the express terms of its policy on an ongoing basis. However, I consider that where a longstanding practice has existed for a substantial period, resulting in a legitimate expectation on the part of an employee, any move to enforce or apply a policy in a materially different way should be accompanied by clear communication and appropriate engagement with those affected.

In the circumstances, I accept that the Worker experienced a genuine sense of grievance arising from the alteration to a practice which had existed over many years, notwithstanding the Employer's entitlement to apply the written policy.

Having considered all of the submissions and evidence presented, I recommend as follows:

1. The Employer is entitled to calculate travel expenses in accordance with its travel and subsistence policy, including the application of the "lesser of" principle in respect of travel from an employee's home to a temporary work location.
2. While I am satisfied that the Employer is entitled to apply its policy, I consider that the Worker's expectation arising from the longstanding practice warrants a modest once-off payment in recognition of the impact of the change and recommend that the Employer make a once-off ex gratia payment of €500 to the Worker in full and final settlement of this aspect of the dispute.