Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ohana  Poubel Marques Flores

Accenture Limited

Representatives

  Self-represented

Kate Walsh Lewis Silkin Ireland LLP

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-00072086-001

03/06/2025

The Complainant, Ms Pouabel Marques Flores, has submitted a complaint that was heard in conjunction with another colleague’s similar complaint.

The complainant sets out that there is a significant discrepancy in their pay and the Respondent has failed to use the established compensation structures specifically on unequal pay for like work.

The Respondent rejects the assertions of the Complainant and sets out that the complaint is out of time and therefore statute barred due to the framing of the complaint and without prejudice to that objection there is no deduction of monies properly payable in fact or within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Complainant in her complaint form sets out she was at all material times an employee of the Respondent as a Trust and Safety Associate - Level 12 having originally started work on the 22/11/2021.

Her complaint sets out that the Respondent has not paid her the amount due to her and does not give the date she should have received payment and references no date at all in the complaint form. The Complainant does reference the date of contravention in the documents submitted to the Commission later referencing the date of contravention:

“5.2 Direct payment of arrears: the difference between €35,700 and €37,400, backdated to 1 December 2024, with interest if the Adjudication Officer considers it appropriate”.  

In the hearing the preliminary objection of the Respondent used the date of the 01/12/2024 and this was not disputed by the Complainant under this complaint.

In order to comply with the Workplace Relations Act and the Payment of Wages Act her last possible date after the six months allowed to make her complaint would have to be the 01/06/2025 and as such it is argued  by the Respondent that she is outside the statutory time limit for bringing her claim, where this claim (Specific Complaint CA-00072086-001) was submitted 03/06/2025 12:20:49 pm.

Specific Complaint CA-00072086-001

The Complainant in both complaints set out their case in the following:

Chronology of Events and Salary Discrepancies

The Complainant had been employed by the Respondent for 3+ years and her pay had been previously adjusted in March 2022. She sets out that uplifts were afforded to some other staff previously and not others despite they all having started at the same time. No satisfactory resolution was provided at that time, establishing a pattern of such discrepancies within the Respondent organisation.

The Complainant transferred to a new project in June 2024 paid as Level 13 taking on the duties of a Level 12 position, higher position in the Respondent company hierarchy. It is their contention they consistently performed work equivalent to other Level 12 staff, despite being graded as Level 13.

Promotion to Level 12 and Company-Wide Salary Adjustment (December 2024):

In December 2024 they were promoted and congratulated by the CEO. However, the appropriate salaries at the time for Level 12 was €37400. This left the Complainant underpaid against the agreed rate to the amount of €1,700.

The Complainant refers to a delay in issuing contracts and the continuing pay discrepancies from December 2024 to April 2025. They did not receive a contract for the Level 12 role until the April of 2025 and complains of a procedural irregularity that impacts their ability to prove their income for various matters.

Unilateral Reversal and Unsubstantiated Performance Allegation (May 2025)

It is the sworn evidence of the Complainants that in May 2025 they were informed that the salary would remain at €35,700 due to alleged "performance issues." This was despite there being no formal performance concerns communicated. There was no formal process in coming to this decision, no performance review, warning or opportunity to answer decision and was contradictory to the prior assurances.

Grounds of Complaint Unequal Pay for Like Work

The Complainant refers pay inequality and claims that there is a difference in pay they are being paid less than their level 12 comparators in breach of the principle of equal pay for like work. The Complainant sets out new entrants are paid the same salary as they after four years’ service.

Inconsistencies With Other Level 12 Staff

The performance defence appears to be inequitably applied with other staff receiving the rate of pay despite their quality of work, or otherwise, and this demonstrates that performance is not a factor.

Contradiction of Company Policy Regarding Base Pay (Supported by CEO Email):

The Complainant refers to the email of the CEO on their promotion and congratulation that sets out the contradiction of the policy on compensation.

The decision to deny salary correction based on alleged "performance issues" directly contradicts Accenture's own stated compensation principles. In a confidential email from  the CEO - EMEA Market, "stay-at-level (base pay) increases" are "focused on key growth areas and based on market," and are distinct from "bonus and performance equity decisions."

The Complainant expected adjustment was for a base pay correction to align with the market rate for the next level and not a performance-driven bonus. The sudden and unsubstantiated claim of "performance issues" for this base pay matter is therefore inconsistent with the company's own articulated compensation strategy, as communicated by senior leadership.

Breach Of Legitimate Expectation Regarding Pay

Accenture's consistent assurances regarding salary alignment and retroactive pay created a clear and legitimate expectation that pay would be corrected to the Level 12 base. The sudden and unilateral reversal of this position, combined with the introduction of unsubstantiated performance allegations, constitutes a breach of this legitimate expectation regarding the Complainant compensation.

Pattern of Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Transparency

The Complainant sets out that there is a documented history of Accenture's poor process management and lack of transparency regarding employee compensation and contract terms. The Complainant sets out that this is evidenced by:

·        The significant delay in issuing updated employment contracts (four months after official promotion in the system).

·        Accenture's prior failure to resolve similar base pay discrepancies, where some employees received updates while others doing "like work" did not, despite being informed of the "HR misunderstanding" and legal obligations regarding equal pay.

·        The non-procedural and sudden invocation of "performance issues" to deny an expected base pay correction, which directly contradicts company policy on base pay adjustments. These instances collectively demonstrate a concerning pattern of inconsistent application of pay policies.

Requested Redress

The Complainant has set out the following in terms of redress, and they respectfully request that the Commission conducts a thorough investigation into this matter and directs Accenture to:

1.      Adjust their annual salary to the established Level 12 base immediately, aligning pay with that of Level 12 colleagues performing like work and new hires at the same level.

2.      Provide retroactive pay for the difference between the salary received and the Level 12 base salary, calculated from 01 December 2024 to the present.

The Complainant also asks that the Adjudicator award appropriate compensation for the distress, humiliation, and other effects caused by the discrimination and unfair treatment they have experienced.

The Respondent sets out a defence of the issues raised under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and raises a preliminary objection.

Preliminary Objection

The Respondent sets out that the alleged contravention date is 1 December 2024; complaints were filed on 3 June 2025, outside the six-month limit under the Workplace Relations Act and the Payment of Wages Act. The Respondent cites HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331, emphasizing that limitation depends on how the complaint is framed and rejects any concept of an “ongoing breach”.

Substantive Argument

The Respondent sets out, without prejudice to their preliminary objection, the employment history of the complainant in this and the associated ADJ numbers as; Ms Sant’Anna: Employed since March 2022 and Ms Flores Employed since November 2021.

Both of the Complainants were promoted to Career Level 12 on 1 December 2024, with a contractual salary of €35,700 (confirmed in signed contracts). The payslips show full payment of contractual salary and that no deductions occurred in the period complained of.

In June 2025 following a salary review, Level 12 employees with the exception of those rated “Improve Performance” received an increase to €37,400. Both complainants received ratings requiring and improvement in performance and were excluded.

The other Complainant  resigned in August 2025 and the Complainant in within complaint remains eligible for future increments.

Legal Submissions

The Respondent sets out that under s.5(1) & s.5(6) of the Act, deductions occur only if wages paid are less than those “properly payable.” It is the argument of the Respondent that properly payable wages are contractual salary, which was fully paid at all times.

The Respondent argues that in the within claim the Complainant seeks higher pay, not unpaid wages and is therefore outside scope of the Act.

In setting this out the Respondent cites the following case precedents:

o    Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 to establish “properly payable” first principle.

o   Picton v Matt Talbot Adolescent Services CLG ADJ-00037054 – Failure to award higher pay does not equate to a deduction

o   A Physics and Maths Teacher v A Government Department ADJ-00011094 – Increments not guaranteed  and not therefore considered to be “properly payable” where other factors are at play.

o   Wojtczak v Rentokil Initial Ltd ADJ-00048853 sets out that there is no entitlement to pay increases and therefore there is no deduction.

o   Readett v Aer Lingus ADJ-00056175 as a precedent that there is no binding agreement for higher pay and such a claim must fail.

o   Kearns v Grant Engineering PWD2433 as a precedent that where there is a fulfilment of the paid contractual rate there is no breach under the act.

In citing all of these the Respondent sets out that there is a consistent authority that an expectation of higher pay does not create statutory entitlement.

Respondent Conclusion

The Respondent sets out:

The complaint is out of time under s.41 of the 2015 Act and as per the High Court precedent set out in HSE v McDermott.

The Complainant received all wages properly payable, and no unlawful deduction occurred.

The complaint under the Payment of Wages Act is misconceived and out of time.

Preliminary Objection

The Respondent made out a reasonable case in their preliminary objection, but in the interests of allowing the Complainant an opportunity to make out their case to the fullest I reserved my position on the preliminary objection, and the Complainant was allowed make their case to me. I am, however, guided by the decision of the Labour Court in Gillespie v Donegal Meat Processors (UDD2114) that a tribunal should deal with the preliminary matters to decide jurisdiction and only then address the substantive matters if the tribunal finds it has jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Contravention Complaint

The Respondent points to the contravention set out by the Complainant is the 1st of December 2024  and was lodged on the 3rd of June 2025 outside of the six-month limit under the statute. On this basis the Respondent argues that an Adjudicator has no jurisdiction in the matter and relies upon HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331.

HSE v McDermott  - Initial Cases

McDermott is a case of a Hospital Consultant under the Payment of Wages Act, that like the within case was referred to a date before the 6-month statutory limit and the framing issue of that complaint closely mirrored the framing of the within complaint.

In that case a Rights Commissioner decided that he did have jurisdiction because of other issues related that fell into the 6-month time frame. That is, the failure to pay monies properly payable was a recurring event. 

The decision in that case was then appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal who took a similar view to the Rights Commissioner affirming that earlier decision.

HSE v McDermott - High Court Appeal

The HSE appealed this decision to the High Court and the High Court, in dismissing the appeal, examined date of contravention matter in detail and in examining the referral date clarified the law on that issue and rejected the view that each contravention was a new cause of action, but rather took the view that the matter turns “on the manner in which the complaint is framed by the employee”

“ 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.”

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of time limits in the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and emphasises the importance of how complaints are framed in determining whether they fall or stand.

The date used in submissions at the hearing was the contravention was the 01/12/2026 where the joined parties spoken with the one voice and did not object to the use of that date in a situation where the Complainant under this Adjudication number used no date. To use no date would be to fail to particularise their complaint and the only date referenced, without objection, at the hearing was the 01/12/206 which is the only date I have before me in the joint submissions.

Her complaint sets out that the Respondent has not paid her the amount due to her and does not give the date she should have received payment and references no date at all. In the hearing the preliminary objection of the Respondent used the date of the 01/12/2024 and this was not disputed nor corrected by the Complainant under this complaint

 It is clear to me, from the foregoing, that the matter is statute-barred, as argued by the Respondent, and I have no jurisdiction in the matter where the complaint is out of time.

I have given a good deal of time to consider all the submissions put forward and find that I must follow the reasoning of Justice Hogan in  the High Court decision  in HSE v McDermott (2014) IEHC 331 and that the complaint is statute barred and I, therefore, have no jurisdiction.

There are some other issues that are in error in this complaint and some of the redress sought by Complainant are beyond the scope of that available had the matter not been statute-barred, but these do not fall to be addressed nor decided by me in this circumstance where I find that I do not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

For these reasons I find the complaint is not well-founded.

For the reasons outline above the complaint referred is statute barred and I find the complaint is not well-founded.

Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Statute-barred, Contravention Date