Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  Flood

Health Service Executive

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr G Finlay HSE

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-00074140-001

07/08/2025

The issue in contention was a Payment of Wages complaint by the Complainant, a Senior Executive with the Respondent, a National Level Health Organisation, regarding anomalies in his correct Grading.

The employment with the overall Organisation began on the 22 May 1999 but had progressed via many promotions to his current position in February 2015.

The employment continues.

The rate of pay is at the published rate for his Position.

The Complainant was self-represented. He gave an oral testimony supported by a detailed Written Submission.

He had been appointed to an Assistant National Director Estates position in February 2015. This was regarded as a Grade B Support level positon.

Very shortly after his appointment, he was requested to assume additional responsibility for two separate Maintenance Subdivision on an almost “emergency” basis. It was alleged that significant governance irregularities had arisen in these divisions. He was required to take charge, make all the necessary reforms and ensure that all good business practices were being followed. A sizeable additional compliment of staff, in excess of some 100, were now also in his expanded remit.

In the period of years since 2015 he had very successfully managed his own positon and the additional Subdivisions. It was his view that, by open comparison with colleagues, he now merited a Grade A classification. His Work brief far exceeded his original designation.

All efforts to have the Organisation review his positon had proved fruitless. A claim to the WRC was his only option. His complaint was that he was not being paid the “Appropriate” & “Properly Payable” Wage. He was claiming significant arrears of pay back to 2015.

The Respondent was represented by Mr Finlay of the National Level HR Office of the Organisation. Considerable Oral Testimony was given supported by a detailed Written Submission.

Mr Finlay, initially, pointed to a number of procedural shortfalls in the basic Complaint. There had never been any “Deductions” such as to bring it under the ambit of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991.

None the less, Mr Finlay argued that the Complaint was a straightforward Industrial Relations / Wage Increase & Regrading claim.  It had repercussive effects as there were a number, approximately 25 persons, who could be impacted. There was also the issue of whether or not it was precluded by the “No Cost Increasing” clause of the current National / Public Service Wage Agreement.

The Complainant’s excellent work performance was well known and appreciated. Regrettably the Organisation had no realistic Job Evalauion/Regrading / Adjudication mechanism for a positon of this seniority. The only option would appear to be to have the situation of his Grade raised in any upcoming revised Public Service Wage Agreement.

3:1         The Legal Position

The Payment of Wages Act,1991 at Section 5 “Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers” effectively requires that a Deduction be made from an employee’s wages.

However, Sub Section 6 of Section 5 -quoted below – raises the issue of how “Properly apybale Wages “are to be determined

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.

(Underlining by Adjudication Officer)

The Complainant argued that the higher Grade was his “Properly Payable Wage” and by not receiving this rate there was a qualifying deduction.

To accede to this argument the Adjudication Officer would have to effectively make a Regrading Decision.

From experience the Adjudication Officer knows that Regrading Deisons are lengthy complex issues & negotiations involving many Management stakeholders/Trade Unions & Representatives Bodies.

This cannot be undertaken in the context of the present Payment of Wages ,1991 complaint.

3:2         Adjudication Conclusion

On the basis of the Oral Testimony from the Parties there was considerably good will towards the Complainant.

The overall case, which as considerable merit, requires an immediate review by Senior Management and the appropriate Representative Bodies as to creation of a suitable Job Evaluation mechanism for this Grade and movement between two Grading levels quoted. This may well need to form a side issue in any new Public Service Pay Negotiations.

However, and regrettably on Technical Grounds the Complaint has to be deemed Not Properly Founded and has to be deemed Unsuccessful.

Payment of Wages, Regrading