Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Richard  Wall

Calc Global Leasing Limited

Representatives

Conor Cahill B.L. instructed by Daniel Spring & Co Solicitors.

 A&L Goodbody LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00070420-001

31/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00070420-002

31/03/2025

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

CA-00070420-003

31/03/2025

The complainant submitted three complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 31st March 2025. Complaint application numbers CA-00070420-001 and CA-00070420-002 alleging penalisation in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 were withdrawn at the commencement of the adjudication hearing on 9th October 2025. The remaining issue submitted on the complaint form concerns the non-payment of sick leave entitlements to the complainant. The cognisable period of the complaint is the six-month period immediately prior to the referral of the complaint to the WRC (1st October 2024 to 31st March 2025).

Supplemental Submissions

At the adjudication hearing on 9th October 2025, both parties had opposing views on the correct amounts due to be paid to the complainant. Notwithstanding the issue of whether the payments were properly payable in accordance with Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, both parties were asked to submit supplemental submissions on the amounts allegedly due. The supplemental submissions in question were received from both parties as of 17th November 2025.

Given that the complaints relating to penalisation were withdrawn at the commencement of the adjudication hearing, the remaining complaint relates to the payment of sick leave entitlements to the complainant.

The complainant’s position is that he is owed sick pay in accordance with the terms of the staff handbook which provides for the payment of six months gross pay in respect of sick leave. The complainant is also seeking an additional 10% in respect of pension contributions for the relevant six-month period. The complainant, in supplemental submissions to the WRC, quantified the losses including the pension contribution at €157, 444.40 for the six-month period 30th August 2024 – February 2025. The complainant is seeking payment in that amount from the respondent.

The respondent’s position is that the payments in question are not properly payable to the complainant under the Act. The respondent submits that the complainant’s contract is clear and states that “there is no contractual right to payment in respect of any period of absence due to sickness or incapacity and any such payments will be made at the company’s sole discretion.” Given the discretionary nature of the payment of sick leave both in respect of the contract of employment and the staff handbook, the respondent contends that the complainant does not have a contractual right to payments in respect of sick leave and accordingly the payments are not properly payable in accordance with Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Supplemental submissions

Notwithstanding the position that payments in respect of sick leave are not properly payable to the complainant, the respondent quantifies the amount at €132,543.93. The respondent stated that the amount sought by the complainant is incorrect and has been calculated without considering factors such as pension contributions paid as part of previous sick pay, periods of paid sick leave in July and August 2024, the application of a different cognisable period in respect of the complaint, issues concerning Illness Benefit payments from July and August 2024 and the fact that the complainant’s six months pf paid sick leave (if due) would have expired earlier as a result of previous payments relating to sick leave.

The issue to be adjudicated on in the within complaint relates to sick leave payments and whether the payments in question are properly payable to the complainant in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Applicable Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 states as follows:

"wages", in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 states as follows:

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Conclusions

The complainant’s representative is of the view that the sick leave payments are due based on the respondent’s handbook at paragraph 5.1.5.1 which states “once you have passed your probation period the Company operates a sick pay scheme that provides full pay (gross salary) for a certified sick leave period of up to and including 6 consecutive months”.  However, I also note that the staff handbook states earlier at paragraph 5.1.5 that “there is no statutory entitlement to sick pay.”

The respondent contends that it is the provisions of the complainant’s contract of employment that applies and its provisions at Paragraph 15.3 which states that “there is no contractual right to payment in respect of any period of absence due to sickness or incapacity and any such payments will be made at the company’s sole discretion.”

I have reviewed the provisions of the complainant’s contract of employment and the staff handbook and note that both documents contain provisions that indicate that sick pay is paid on a discretionary basis. Accordingly, I find that the complainant does not have a contractual right to sick pay for the period of six months prior to receiving payments under his income continuance protection insurance. On that basis I find that the complaint cannot succeed.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Wages properly payable, entitlement to sick pay.