Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Public Service

Representatives

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 - 00002835

08/07/2024

The Worker was employed by the Employer as a porter for approximately 14 years. In this role he received shift and travel allowances as well as rostered overtime.

In January 2022 the Worker accepted a promotion into an administrative role. No allowances were payable in this role and this was clarified to the Worker at the time. However, due to a payroll error the Worker’s allowances continued to be paid.

The Employer discovered this in late 2023 and wrote to the Worker in early 2024 to alert him to the overpayment which totalled approximately €16,000 and that they would begin regular deductions of each fortnight to recoup the overpayment.

The Worker disputed that he this was an overpayment. He raised a grievance which progressed through stage 2 which resulted in an outcome that there had been an overpayment and deductions were warranted. The worker appealed to stage 3 which resulted in the same outcome. The Worker then appealed to stage 4 which is this referral of a trade dispute under Section 13 of the 1969 Act.

During stages 2 and 3 the Employer paused the repayment schedule. When the internal process failed to find for the Worker the Employer restarted the deductions later in 2024. The Worker objected to this on the basis that the stage 4 process, i.e. this trade dispute, was still live. The Employer agreed with him and refunded those deductions

The Worker has since accepted that had been overpaid and the Employer was entitled to deduct this overpayment. He has now sought to redefine his stage 4 appeal / trade dispute as a challenge to the earlier grievance stages on purely procedural grounds and in particular focusing on the Employer’s failure to cease deduction for some of the period of time after this stage 4 appeal/ trade dispute was filed. This is despite the fact that he now accepts that deductions themselves were correct.

The Worker made detailed written and oral submissions. As this dispute has progressed he has become more educated about these issues. He accepts that the Employer was entitled to recoup overpayment. He now seeks to challenge their stage 2 and stage 3 processes on the basis that they proceeded too quickly and further informal engagement could have happened first as outlined in the policy.

After his stage 3 grievance was rejected he appealed to the WRC via this complaint which is stage 4 of the Employer’s process. Shockingly repayments started even though his appeal continued.

After the Worker submitted this appeal he challenged the Employer resuming deductions of the overpayments pending this process. He now accepts that the Employer was correct not to uphold his grievance and internal appeal and that the overpayments are owing to the Employer. He is advancing a totally new dispute separate to the trade dispute referred to the WRC (i.e. his grievance appeal) and seeks to raise purely technical issues.

The Employer submits that the Worker is engaged in an abuse of process to frustrate and delay repayment of the monies he accepts he owes.

The Employer has at all times offered to consult the Workers on the schedule and level of deductions but he has not engaged.

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

The Employer was entitled to deduct overpayments. The Worker challenged this approximately two years ago and the Employer stopped recouping overpayments roughly 20 months ago. The Worker now accepts that the Employer were allowed to recoup these overpayments. While he was entitled to change his mind on his grievance, at that point he should have withdrawn this trade dispute.

The Employer’s conclusion that the Worker is engaged in an abuse of process is a reasonable one. I would recommend that they review their policy of stopping deductions while the issue is appealed to the WRC via this act.