Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Adrienne  Doyle

Bristol Myers Squibb

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Self-Represented but supported by Alan Doyle

Ms Kiwana Ennis BL instructed by  Sonam Gaitonde of  Arthur Cox 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-00073158-001

05/07/2025

The issue in contention concerns a Senior Manager, the Complainant, who alleged that she was subjected to an illegal Salary Deduction, in contravention of the Payment of Wages Act,1991, by her Employer, the Respondent, a Pharmaceutical Multinational. The issue concerned a period of Parental Leave, the payment /non-payment for which was disputed.

The employment began on the 2nd of July 2007 and continues.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €96k per annum for a 39 Hour week.

The Complainant was self-represented but submitted a detailed Written Submission.

In essence her case was that she had applied for Company Parental leave in January 2024. On the HR Computer System, the only option was paid Leave which she had entered. Her Application was Approved by her Line Manager, and the paid Leave took place from 11th March 2024 until 31st May 2024.

It was only in October 2024 that the Respondent notified here that the leave should have been unpaid and made arrangements to recoup the paid salary. This was on the basis that the Payment was a Management Administrative error, was an Overpayment and had to be repaid by the Employee.

The Complainant contested this. A voluminous body of correspondence between the parties followed.  Deductions began in July 2025, some 14 months after the date of the Leave.

The Complainant argued that the Respondent had voluntarily changed the Parental leave from Unpaid to Paid as part of a Comprehensive Overhaul of Company HR Policies in late 2023 – the “Ireland Reimagined Programme”. The communication of the changes, especially the qualification rule regarding the need for the eligible child to be born post the 1st January 2024, was haphazard to say the least. Ther Complainant was still on Maternity Leave at this time and was not physically in the Office. Much of the details regarding “Ireland Reimagined” had been sent to her old University e mail address which she had clearly told HR was out of use since mid-2023. The Respondent did not officially alter their Standard Stated HR Procedures until a circular Letter of March 2024 and did not alter the IT System until October 2024. To come along, initially, some 6 months later in October 2024, with deductions eventually beginning in July 2025, was a compete abuse of process.  The Leave was clearly offered as Paid Leave and the Respondent cannot now retrospectively seek to impose a Deduction for an event, which was approved by the Respondent, some 13 months previously.

The Respondent was represented by Ms K Ennis BL and supported by a number of Management witnesses. A detailed written submission was supplied. Oral testimony from the Managers was given.

In essence the Respondent position was that the Parental leave in question was paid in error, and this constituted an “Over Payment” of Salary. Section 5 A (1) of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 allows for salary deductions to correct an error in Payments. This is clearly the case here, even allowing for the fact that most of the payroll errors were administrative on the Respondent side.

Extensive Managerial Testimony was given as to the very detailed Staff Communication programmes “ Town Hall” meetings Q and A fact sheets etc covering the Ireland Reimagined Programme and in particular the Parental leave changes especially the Age of Child qualification rule. The suggestion that a Staff member, particularly a Senior Manager,  would have been unaware of the changes on such a critical point was very hard to accept. As stated, extensive case law was quoted in support of the Respondent position principally Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Ltd v Lacey [2007] IR 478 and Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] ELR 125.

The Adjudicator closely reviewed the Complainant and Respondent extensive written materials. The Oral testimony was carefully considered.  Considerable research was undertaken on Payment of Wages Act,1991 precedents and the case law cited by the Parties.

3:1 The Legal Position

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is the relevant law.  Significant case law was proffered by the Respondent to argue the case that the payment for the Parental leave was “Not properly payable” and as such the repayment of same cannot be contested by the Complainant.

On the other hand, the Complainant argued that it was never properly made clear to her that the Leave was Unpaid. The paid leave position was comprehensively reinforced by the Approval from her Line Manager in January 2024  (who may not have been aware of full details of the policy) but crucially by the communications from HR also in January 2024.

The unusual fact was that the Respondent, a major pharmaceutical Organisation well used to detailed procedures for all Regulatory Safety aspects of the Pharmaceutical environment, did not amend their Official Procedures until March 2024 (albeit all Staff Communications regarding Ireland Reimagined in late 2023 , allegedly in the Respondent view ,did cover this child age  point) . Furthermore, the Respondent, did not become aware of the payment error until mid-October 2024.

The Adjudicator studied the detailed case law proffered by the Respondent. The case law clearly supported the Respondent case. However, it was difficult to see exact comparisons for the somewhat unique circumstances of this particular case.

 A point of debate was the question as to whether or not Section 5(2) of the Act was possibly applicable.

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.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(Underlining by Adjudication Officer.)

Section 5(2), if applied, would imply that the taking of the Paid Parental leave was “An act or omission of the employee”. Interestingly, if Section 5(2) is applied the entire body of deductions is “out of time” and has to be disregarded.

This leads to a discussion as to how the “Ireland Reimagined” Program was communicated, (especially the per 2024 date of birth qualification) particularly to an employee on Maternity Leave.  However, the Employee, the Complainant, is a Senior Manager in a highly regulated Pharmaceutical Industry and the question of defining what the Omission was and how it could be logically explained would require very careful consideration.

 The Respondent position that Section 5(2) was not applicable as the Payment was in effect an admitted Administrative error resulting in an “Overpayment of wages” simpliciter and Section 5(5) applies.

The Adjudication Officer was conscious of the very sincere oral testimony under sworn oath (in addition to extensive written materials) from the Complainant that she would never have opted for this Leave if it was going to have been Unpaid. The Complainant was a Senior Manager of long standing and her sworn Oral Testimony had to taken with due regard.

3:2         Review of key Evidence and  Adjudication conclusions

The first observation from the Adjudicator was that the Respondent had, to use accepted Quality parlance, quite a “Quality escape” in the proper implementation of their Paid/Unpaid procedures. This was compounded by the fact that it took until October 2024 to become aware of the alleged “Overpayment”.

However, the points made in the letter/e mail from Ms P, Senior HR Manager on 27th June 2025 had considerable merit particularly the observation that the Complainant was very familiar with Parental leave as an unpaid benefit having taken it on two previous occasions. The implied observation, it appeared to the Adjudicator, was that the Complainant, as a Senior Manager took the change to Paid Leave rather hastily without, it could be said, the proper investigations that would be expected of a Staff member of her rank.

The letter did acknowledge unreservedly that there had been administrative errors on the Respondent side.

In overall summary Adjudication view neither Party came to the case with a 100% position.

It follows that the opening paragraph of Section 6 of the Act is worth noting.

Complaint to adjudication officer under section 41 of Workplace Relations Act 2015

6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of [ as respects a deduction made by an employer [from the wages or tips or gratuities] of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding

Underlining by Adjudication Officer.

The Adjudication conclusion is that the Complaint is “In part well founded” due to the Administrative errors on the Respondent side but this is heavily counterbalanced by the clear legal Precedents quoted by Ms Ennis BL for the Respondent. Accordingly, the Adjudication finding is that the Respondent deductions to the 31st of June 2026 are allowed (twelve deductions on monthly payroll from July 2025) but that any deductions post this date are prohibited – effectively to be “written off” by the Respondent. This “Write Off” is deemed a “Reasonable Compensation” to the Complainant for a “Part Well founded” complaint.

Parental Leave – Payment of Wages Act,1991.