Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lynn  Louis

Headcount Solutions

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Laura Powney – of HR Space assisted by Company Managers

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-00073999-001

01/08/2025

The issue in contention was a complaint by a Scientist that her former Employer, a Scientific Placement Agency, had not honoured her Contract of Employment by refusing to pay her the contractual term of One Month’s Salary on termination of her Employment.

The employment began on the 4th September 2024 and ended on the 18th July 2025. The end date was subject to some inter Party discussion.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been €,5833 per month.

The Complainant was self-represented but gave an Oral testimony supported by a detailed Written Submission. She presented as a most capable Scientific Executive.

In essence her complaint was that she had been assigned/placed in a Medical Research/Pharmaceutical Company – “Company A”.  All had gone well until an issue regarding Intellectual Property/Inventorship Rights had arisen in mid July 2025. On the 18th July she had requested an Audit Trail of a Patent Application that was being made. The issue involved considerable personal Inventorship research by the Complainant. It was her concern that her unique research was not being given due legal Inventorship recognition.

Shortly after making the Audit Request, she was “locked out” of the Research Company IT Systems -effectively removing her opportunity to work. She took his to be a Constructive Dismissal by the Employer and as such qualified her for the one month’s salary - end of employment payment as set out in her contract.

Extensive e mail traffic between the Parties was submitted in evidence.

Post Hearing Submissions focused largely on the legal question of the definition of what a “Properly Payable” Wage and issues of fact as disputed at the Hearing. Section 5 of the PoW 1991 Act was discussed in detail.

The Respondent was represented, most professionally, by HR Consultant, Ms L Powney. Oral Testimony was given supported by a comprehensive Written Submission.

In essence, the Respondent case was that the Complainant had ended her own employment by the e mails of the 18th July 2925 and confirmations of the 21st July 2025. She had declined to attend a face-to-face meeting with Respondent Consultant, Ms O’S, on the 21st July 2025. This meeting was proposed as an opportunity to clarify matters and seek a suitable resolution for the Complainant both with Pharmaceutical Company A and with the Agency. It was made very clear at all stages that Pharmaceutical Company A did not have any authority to end the Complainant’s Contract of Employment which was with the Placement Agency-the Respondent.

The Respondent also pointed out that the Complainant was equally in error by not giving the Placement Company one months’ notice as specified in the Contract of Employment.

As the Complainant had effectively resigned without any notice there was no suggestion of any Notice Pay being due. All “Properly Payable” sums had been discharged to the Complainant and as such there could be no Complaint under either Section 5 or Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991.

The Respondent cited favourable, to their arguments, Legal Precedent in G4S Secure Solutions (Irl) Ltd v Kinsella (PWD 1715) and HSE v McDermott (PWD146)

In subsequent Post Hearing correspondence, the Respondent did not accept the Complainant Arguments regrading what constituted “Properly Payable Wages” as referenced in Section 5 Sub Section 6 of the 1991 PoW Act.

3:1      Legal Issues

This case raised issues regarding the definition of “properly payable” wages. Section 5 (6) of the Act refers.

(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.

This issue was discussed at length in the very well-known High Court case of Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) v Lacey and Nula O’Brien [2005] IEHC 417. Here Mr Justice Finnegan determine that the primary issue has always to be, to determine firstly what is “Properly payable”.

In this case the Complainant essentially argued that her complete One Months’ Notice Pay as per her Contract was a “Properly Payable” Wage.

Section 1 - Interpretation refers to Wages as including

“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:

At first reading this would seem to indicate that the One Months’ Notice Pay as set out in the contract is “Properly Payable” as the Non-Payment is a Deduction covered by Section 5 of the Act.

It is also important to note that all legal precedent and practice indicates that the Payment of Wages Act,1991 is confined to the recovery of Statutory Payments only. The issue of Contractual Payments, such as a Notice Pay clause in a Contract of Employment which is in excess of a Statutory Provisions (as provided for in the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973) are matters for a contract Law examination in the Civil Courts.

Ms Powney, a most capable Advocate, for the Respondent, was very forceful in her arguments that the Payment of Wages Act,1991 could not be “extended” by a Complainant, to create issues not within its clear Statutory remit.

However, legal precedents aside, all cases rest on their own factual matrix and the balance of evidence. These will be considered next.

3:2       Consideration of Evidence as given under Sworn Oath/Affirmation.

The basic facts are that on the 18th July 2025 a serious issue arose in Company A regarding the alleged Patent/Inventorship rights of the Complainant. She was shut out of the IT system. For a Senior Scientist this was a radical step by Company A and one that it was hard, to an outside observer such as the Adjudicator, to see any reasonable employment relationship recovering from. There was some correspondence regarding Hand Overs and Technical Assistance requests to the Complainant post the ending of the employment, but these did not appear to have been particularly fruitful.

In subsequent e mail exchanges and Oral testimony, the Complainant made it clear that she was not seeking a Constructive Dismissal redress rather her alleged One Month’s Notice Pay.

The actual employer, the Agency, did seek to have a meeting on the 21st July 2025 but the Complainant declined and reiterated her desire to “off board” with the Pharmaceutical Company. it appeared that the Agency acquiesced with the Complainant and took steps to end her employment with the Agency. The final wage payment was valid to the 18th July 2025.

On balance of probabilities and consideration of all the evidence the Adjudication view has to be that Notice Pay is “Properly payable” as per Section 5 (6) above but as the claim is under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, it is limited to the Statutory allowances – in this case one week’s pay.

The Balance of three weeks’ pay is a Contractual, issue for a different Civil Court

Accordingly, one Weeks’ Notice Pay is awarded to the Complainant.

Notice Pay, Properly payable wages.