Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sukhpreet Singh  Bawa

Accenture Limited

Representatives

self

Emma Quinn Lewis Silkin Ireland LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073426-001

14/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073426-002

14/07/2025

The Complainant claims in his submission:

CA-00073426-001

I was contractually entitled to 8 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice upon termination. I was a salaried employee, paid monthly at a rate of €9,166.67 gross per month, which equates to €110,000 per annum. My payslips and contract confirm that I was not paid weekly, but on a fixed monthly salary cycle.

Accenture, however, calculated my notice pay on a weekly basis, using €2,115.38 per week (i.e. €110,000 ÷ 52), and paid me €16,923.08 gross for 8 weeks. This is €1,410.26 less than I would have received if paid using the monthly basis — two full calendar months at €9,166.67 would equal €18,333.34 gross.

Because I was a monthly-paid employee, I maintain that 8 weeks of notice pay should equate to two calendar months of gross salary. I respectfully request that the WRC review this shortfall. Total outstanding amount: €18,333.34 - €16,923.08 = €1,410.26.

CA-00073426-002

Following my final payslips in April and May, I identified significant deductions made from my holiday pay based on unjustified assumptions of unpaid absence. Despite submitting certified medical sick leave notes covering approximately three weeks in April, Accenture payroll deducted 5 days as unpaid sick leave (7–11 April), 5 days as unpaid absence (14–20 April), and 6 further days (21–29 April) as unpaid illness. These were incorrectly processed despite medical certification. A holiday payment of €6,716.77 was used to offset these deductions, leaving me with a net payment of only €9.38 for May. I calculate the underpayment at €2,129.42 and respectfully request that the WRC direct the employer to repay this amount.

This matter came before the Adjudicator in January 2026. The Respondent was directed to provide a signed payroll reconciliation statement. As no such statement was provided before the first hearing concluded, the matter reconvened on 27 April 2026. Prior to that hearing, a detailed statement was provided by Ms Tara McAvoy, Business Process Delivery Manager for Accenture Payroll. That statement confirmed that:

•  The Complainant’s last day of employment was 29 April 2025.

•  The Complainant received his full April 2025 salary.

•  Due to payroll scheduling during a period of absence, an amount of €7,121.79 was deducted.

•  Upon investigation, the Complainant had not received his statutory sick pay entitlement for the first 5 days of his absence (7–13 April 2025) and was reimbursed €2,083 in July 2025.

•  The Complainant was paid for days worked from 1 to 4 April 2025.

•  At the hearing on 16 January 2026, the Complainant raised that he had not been paid for 28 and 29 April 2025. Accenture confirmed this was correct and reimbursed him €833.33 gross (€511.66 after tax).

•  There are no further payments owing to the Complainant.

The Complainant worked for Accenture Limited as a salaried employee earning €110,000 per annum, paid monthly at €9,166.67 per month. His employment ended on 29 April 2025.

He brought two complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

In respect of his notice pay, the Complainant argued that because he was paid on a monthly basis his 8 weeks’ notice pay should have been calculated by reference to two full calendar months, giving him a gross entitlement of €18,333.34. Accenture instead calculated his notice pay on a weekly basis, dividing his annual salary by 52, and paid him €16,923.08. He maintained this left him €1,410.26 short of his correct entitlement.

In respect of his final wages, the Complainant argued that Accenture made a series of incorrect deductions from his pay in April and May 2025. He had been absent due to illness in April 2025 and provided medical certificates to cover that absence. Despite this, Accenture treated a number of those days as unpaid sick leave or unpaid absence and deducted a significant sum from his holiday pay. This left him with a net payment of only €9.38 for May 2025. He calculated the total underpayment at €2,129.42 and sought a direction that Accenture repay that amount. He submitted that the deductions were unauthorised within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and that his holiday pay entitlement under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 had not been properly discharged

In the claim form, the Complainant alleged that he was owed €1,410.26 in respect of his notice pay and €2,129.42 in respect of unpaid holiday pay. This was denied on the basis that the Respondent correctly processed his contractual notice period and holiday pay. The Complainant was also reimbursed for his statutory sick leave days based on full salary.

It was submitted that in respect of his claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “Act”), the Complainant must establish that the alleged payments are properly payable. The Act prohibits unauthorised deductions from wages. However, if the Complainant has no entitlement to payment, having been paid his contractual entitlements, there is no “deduction” within the meaning of the Act.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal in Sullivan v Department of Education held that “payable” meant “properly payable”. The High Court in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Ltd v Lacey held that the issue of what wages were properly payable was the first question for assessment in any evaluation of whether there has been an unlawful deduction.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had been paid his contractual entitlement in lieu of eight weeks’ notice, his holiday pay, and five days’ statutory sick leave pay, and was not entitled to any additional payment. Any sum claimed by the Complainant was not properly payable and the proceedings should be dismissed as not well-founded.

There are two claims before me: one seeking notice to be paid by reference to monthly salary rather than weeks, and a second relating to alleged underpayment of wages properly payable.

CA-00073426-001

The Complainant is not entitled to have his notice paid with reference to a monthly payment. The entitlement set out in the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 is expressed in weeks and not in months. No contractual term was established that would displace the statutory calculation or confer an enhanced entitlement to notice calculated on a monthly basis. As the notice paid meets the statutory requirement, no entitlement to any further payment arises.

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides:

4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

(d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks,

(e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks.

CA-00073426-002

In Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 the Court concurred with the decision reached in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Ltd v Lacey [2005] IEHC 417 that the starting point in the analysis must be to determine what wages are properly payable. As Finnegan P. held in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v Lacey [2007] 1 IR 478, the Employment Appeals Tribunal erred in failing to address the question of remuneration properly payable before considering whether a deduction was unlawful.

Applying those principles, the first question for this tribunal is to determine what wages were properly payable to the Complainant.

At the first hearing on 16 January 2026, it was not possible to fully determine what had and had not been paid. The Complainant disputed the accuracy of the figures put forward by Accenture. The tribunal directed the Respondent to furnish a signed reconciliation statement from a payroll supervisor setting out in detail the amounts deducted, the amounts repaid, and the basis for each. That statement was subsequently provided by Ms Tara McAvoy, Business Process Delivery Manager for Accenture Payroll.

The McAvoy statement confirmed that the Complainant received his full April 2025 salary, that a deduction of €7,121.79 had been made due to the scheduling of payroll during a period of absence, and that upon review the Complainant had not received his statutory sick pay entitlement for the first five days of his absence from 7 to 13 April 2025. To correct this, Accenture reimbursed the Complainant €2,083 in July 2025. In addition, at the first hearing the Complainant raised that he had not been paid for days worked on 28 and 29 April 2025. Accenture accepted this was correct and reimbursed him €833.33 gross in respect of those days.

The hearing reconvened on 27 April 2026 to complete the reconciliation. At that hearing the outstanding amount was agreed between the parties. The Complainant was afforded one week following the reconvened hearing to raise any further challenge to the figures. No such challenge was made. On the evidence presented to this tribunal, the wages properly payable to the Complainant have now been paid in full and there are no outstanding wages properly payable.

 CA-00073426-001

The Complainant is not entitled to have his notice paid with reference to a monthly payment. The entitlement set out in the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 is expressed in weeks and not in months, and no contractual term was established that would displace the statutory calculation. As the notice paid meets the statutory requirement, no further entitlement arises. This complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073426-002

This complaint was well founded. The evidence established that wages properly payable to the Complainant had not been paid at the time the complaint was lodged. Following two hearings and a directed payroll reconciliation, the outstanding amounts were identified and agreed between the parties. Those amounts have since been discharged in full by the Respondent. The Complainant was afforded one week following the reconvened hearing to raise any further challenge to the figures and none was made. As the wages properly payable have now been paid, no monetary award arises.

Properly Payable.