Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mr Martin Leane

An Post

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00075774-001

26/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075774-002

26/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075774-003 DUPLICATE WITHDRAWN AT HEARING

26/09/2025

These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 26/09/2025.  The Complainant alleges contravention by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 29/05/2026.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 1985; he works 37.5 hours per week. 

The Respondent provided written submissions and supporting documentation in advance of hearing.  The Complainant relied on that which was set out in the WRC complaint form together with a further email to the WRC dated 07 May 2026. 

CA-00075774-001 claim pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant claims his employer has not paid him or has paid him less than the amount due to him as set out in the WRC complaint form.

As per WRC complaint form

On 24th July I noticed that I had not been paid on payment date 18th July. I received my next wage slip on the same day (24th July) and noticed that I hadn't been paid again.

For clarity, I had just taken 4 weeks term time, to look after my disabled daughter.  As part of the term time arrangement, the company make weekly deductions over the year so that I would receive full pay while off.

I contacted HR who said it looked like a mistake and would try and get it fixed for next week. I explained that I was especially worried that no deductions had been taken, as there are insurance policies, property tax, credit union etc. that I could not afford to have cancelled.

I returned to work from my leave on 28" July. On Thursday morning 31st July I received my wage slip in the post. I found that I had only been paid for 75 hours (one of the two missing weeks and one weeks regular pay) all my deductions had been taken (3 weeks deductions) and brought up to date.

I don't see how they could take 3 weeks deductions but only give me two weeks pay. Because I had not been paid on 18th and 25th July I had not received my tax free allowances and credits for these weeks, so instead of getting my expected take home pay for 3 weeks of €1,4761 received 2 weeks fully taxed of €737.

Apart from not paying me one weeks missing pay they had interfered with my tax. This left me stressed, anxious and distressed as it was 31st July (last day of the month) with bills to be paid. lt was also the August bank holiday weekend where I had arrangements with family and friends.

I started to make some phone calls about this to try and get it sorted out today. First I rang local union rep [redacted] at 8.12am. He told me to call [redacted] (branch rep) at 8.22 and spoke for 22 minutes. He told me to contact HR and Wages as they would probably not discuss my situation with him due to GDPR.

I rang HR at 9.07 (8 minutes) they said they would pass it on and get back to me.

I got on to Wages at 9.30 for 6 minutes but they didn't seem to be sure how they could fix it. I had another few calls with [redacted] and [redacted] to tell them how I got on.

At 11.37 (12 min call) HR (redacted) rang me. She told me that it had been an admin mistake at local level. She also said that she understood I was worried about my deductions not being met. I said I was but that I also needed the rest of my money today. She told me that I would get the missing weeks pay 'next week' and that the tax would right itself the following week. I said that I shouldn't be put in a position that I have to make a complaint just to get my wages, complaints don't go down well with the company.

I told her if its not sorted out today I would take the matter up with the Chief Executive. She said sorry to me and seemed very nice on a personal level.

I wasn't offered any financial solution or support with no consideration for my situation. I felt I was supposed to just take it on the chin. I work a night shift and had to spend my rest period making calls to try and sort this out, when I should have been sleeping.

I went into work that night, 31st July/1st August. I was very tired and had not slept much that day. I finished work and went home, I spent the whole weekend unable to sleep with my mind racing. I was very stressed, the situation was getting to me and causing tension at home. On Tuesday morning 5th August I was very stressed, I did not go to work and made an appointment to see the company doctor. I went to her and she diagnosed work related stress, prescribed Xanax and said that I needed at least 2 weeks off work.

On 8th August my wage slip arrived and guess what, I had only been paid for 37.5 hours (1 weeks pay) still haven't been paid the missing week. So, over the weekend when I didn't get the missing pay as promised I wondered if I would get the tax sorted out as promised. So, on 13th August I contacted the tax office at 9.36am (43 minutes) I explained what had happened and wondered if was getting the tax back. The man I spoke with said that would not be getting anything back until the end of the tax year if I have overpaid. He said that's the way it works as I am on what's called PAYE (week 1). On 15th August I get my payslip, I haven't been paid the missing week and the tax had not been resolved. just got a normal weeks pay and allowances for week worked 28th  July – 1st August (we work 2 weeks behind for pay)

I went back to the company doctor on 18th August, she thought the stress was worse and was leaving me out until at least 31st October and would see how I am then. The company would not accept this as they required a weekly note. On 20th  August I wasn't feeling too good, I was lightheaded and nauseous, went into a chemist in Wicklow and asked them to take my blood pressure and it was 169 over 110, and 15 minutes later it was 178 over 130 he told me to get to the hospital.

I went to St Michaels in Dun Laoghaire and I was admitted. My blood pressure was bad, they couldn't regulate it, at 9pm they got an ambulance for me and sent me to St Vincent's for a brain cat scan because they suspected that I'd had a stroke. The brain scan was clear, they sent me back to St Michaels they kept me for a further 2 days. The doctors said that I had all the symptoms of a stroke but tests ruled out a stroke and they concluded that my symptoms were caused by work-related stress.

I received my payslip dated 22nd August, still no missing pay, still same tax situation. I find that I've been put on a pension rate of €218.93 for being out sick. But very important I was not paid for the bank holiday Monday 4th August although I did not go sick until the Tuesday, 5th August. I got my next payslip on 29th August and find my pension rate this week is €306.51, I am not sure why this different from the last weeks pension rate.

I received my payslips on 5th and 12th September of €306.51. This seems to be the rate going forward but I don't know how it was calculated. After my deductions my take home pay is €71 per week and I have had to apply for the union for financial assistance. I haven't heard from the company since my initial interactions with HR and payroll, despite assurances that they would get back in touch with me. ln summary, my complaint is that: 

·         I still have not been paid the missing weeks pay, nor has the company updated me as to when I can expect to be paid.

·         There is no remedy to my tax situation or any consideration from the company as to how they could assist me 

·         I was not paid for the bank holiday 4th August. .

·         I am being paid what is called a pension rate without any explanation as to how this is calculated and what if any implications it has on my pension, after 40 years service with the company. It seems that the responsibility is on me to continue to chase up and ask to be paid what I am entitled to, despite the fact that I am out sick with work related stress which was initiated by the companys actions.

My request is that:

I receive all the wages that are outstanding

The company provides a solution to the tax situation

I obtain an explanation as to what this 'pension rate', how it is calculated and an assurance that it will not negatively impact on my pension rate at retirement.

I am compensated for the stress and anxiety caused I am not penalised for my absence due to illness triggered by the companys actions and subsequent inaction, nor am I pressured to return to work before I am able to.

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant on affirmation

The Complainant outlines the events as set out in the WRC complaint form in detail.  Upon enquiry the Complainant confirms that he has since been paid the outstanding week but he didn’t receive it until November and he is very aggrieved.  The Complainant submits he has been targeted by the Respondent and that the errors in relation to his pay were done deliberately.  He submits he had a target on his back.   Upon enquiry the Complainant accepts he understands the sick pay policy and the payments received thereto.    

Cross-examination was offered but not availed of by the Respondent. 

CA-00075774-001 claim pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant, Mr Leane, has been employed by An Post since 15th January 1985 as a Postal Operative.  The Complainant states that his complaint arises from payroll difficulties in July and August 2025, when he did not receive payment on scheduled pay dates following a period of leave. He further asserts that subsequent payroll adjustments affected his tax position, that he was not paid for the August public holiday, and queries the basis on which he was paid at Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration while on sick leave.

Due to an administrative processing error, the Complainant did not receive payment for one week’s pay on the payroll run of 18 July 2025.

The Respondent acknowledges this error and confirms that the outstanding one week’s pay was subsequently paid to the Complainant on 28 November 2025.  The Respondent submits that, while unfortunate, the error was not deliberate and was rectified once identified.

Deductions and Tax

The six-week period referenced by the Complainant reflects: • Two weeks’ pay actually issued, and • Three weeks of deductions, which were applied in order to regularise earlier overpayments and to align the Complainant’s pay with his correct sick pay status. PAYE and statutory deductions are calculated automatically by Revenue based on pay processed. Any adjustment arising from over- or under-payment is managed through the PAYE system and is not within the unilateral control of the Respondent. The Respondent submits that no unlawful deduction occurred, and that payroll processing operated in accordance with statutory requirements.

CA-00075774-002 claim pursuant to the Organistion of Working Time Act, 1997

Bank Holiday - August 2025

The Complainant alleges that he was not paid for the August public holiday. The Respondent submits that the Complainant received a day’s leave in lieu in respect of this public holiday.  This leave remains available on the Complainant’s leave record. This satisfies the Respondent’s obligations under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

Summary of direct evidence of Respondent witness Ms Sally Cullen (hereafter SC) on oath

The witness submits there was a computational error in the wages arising from the fact that the Complainant was on term time and the incorrect code / incorrect leave was applied.  It is submitted the code for term time ‘unpaid’ was applied whereas it should have been term time ‘annualised’.  

The witness submits there is a new HR system launched in 2024 to facilitate the raising of pay related queries;  a HR help desk the implementation of which would have been widely canvassed at the time and of which the union would be aware.  The witness submits the errors were not done deliberately and she extends her apologies and she wants him to know she hears what he is saying. 

Summary of cross-examination of SC

The Complainant puts it to the witness that he is not sure it didn’t happen on purpose.  He flagged it on the second week and they still made the same mistake.  It is put to the witness that he expected something to be done when he rang up and he doesn’t agree with her and puts it to her that if he hadn’t phoned the WRC he would never have got the money.  The Complainant did not have any specific questions in cross-examination for the witness and ventilated his general dissatisfaction with the manner in which he perceives he has been treated by the Respondent.   

CA-00075774-001

This is a complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. 

In conducting my investigation, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.    I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. 

The Relevant Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (“the 1991 Act”) provides the following definition of wages:

"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:

Section 5 of the 1991 Act sets out:

5. Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers

(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.

Section 5(6) of the Act of 1991 provides:

 “(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.” [emphasis added] 

The matter for me to decide is whether the Respondent has properly paid the Complainant in accordance with section 5 of the 1991 Act. 

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made.  If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful.  The 1991 Act does not define the concept of “properly payable” and I must reach a conclusion on this by reference to objective criteria and with due deference to previous findings of the Labour Court or other authorities. 

The Relevant Facts

I note upon enquiry the Complainant confirmed there is currently no monies owing to him. 

I note there is no disagreement on the facts of the error in regard to the Complainant’s wages while he was benefiting from a period of what is known as ‘term time’ in the Respondent workplace and in some workplaces as a ‘shorter working year’.   It is not in dispute there are specific administrative arrangements for the payment of salary during this period of ‘term time’ which in itself is a period of unpaid leave.  It is not in dispute the Complainant, rather than receive nil pay during ‘term time’ opted to have his reduced pay spread over a 12-month period. 

I accept the Respondent position that the incorrect code was applied to the Complainant’s wages.  For reasons that were never adequately explained at hearing,  the Complainant embarked on a series of phone calls to various people including local union reps; branch reps; HR; Wages; and again HR in order to seek to have this rectified in circumstances where there was specific pathway for seeking resolution of which he would have been aware as would his union reps. 

I note the Complainant did not appear to appreciate the benefit of using the Respondent’s designated channels for payroll and other HR queries but chose instead to embark on a series of phone calls which I fully accept were a cause of great frustration to him. 

I note the Complainant remains steadfast in his view that he has been targeted by the Respondent and, in his view, forced into retirement.  I note the Respondent at hearing stated it remained open to the Complainant to discussing with him and revisiting with him his decision to retire.  This suggestion was reiterated by the Respondent and swiftly rebuffed by the Complainant who remains entrenched in his view that he has been targeted. 

Notwithstanding all the aforementioned I am bound in my decision making by the parameters of the impleaded legislation as I apply the law to the facts as presented. 

The Complainant at the hearing acknowledged that the outstanding week which formed the basis of this complaint had been paid but he is seeking an award of compensation for the stress and anxiety caused by the late payment.    

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act states that an employee may present a complaint to the WRC that his or her employer has contravened section 5 of the Act.  It is noted there is no provision in section 5 in regard to the late payment of wages that are ultimately paid.  The Complainant has not advanced any case that I could consider to be a contravention of the impleaded legislation.   

Therefore, I find this complaint as presented to be not well-founded. 

For completeness, I have also taken into consideration the provisions of section 5(6)(b) in my deliberations on this matter.    

CA-00075774-002 claim pursuant to the Organistion of Working Time Act, 1997

The Relevant Law

Section 21 of the 1997 Act states: -

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely—

a) a paid day off on that day

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day

(c) an additional day of annual leave

(d) an additional day's pay”

Section 22 of the 1997 Act provides as follows:-

“(1) The rate—

(a) at which an employee is paid in respect of a day off under section 21, and

(b) of an employee's additional day's pay under that section,

shall be such rate as is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of that section.

(2) For the purposes of section 21, time off granted to an employee under that section or section 19 shall be regarded as time worked by the employee.”

The Organisation of Working Time (Determination of Pay for Holidays) Regulations 1997, SI 475 of 1997 (the “1997 Regulations”), address the appropriate daily rate of pay for the purpose of section 21 of the Act and how it should be calculated. 

Regulation 5(1)(a) provides that where the employee concerned works or is normally required to work on a public holiday:

“the relevant rate in respect of that public holiday shall be the sum that is equal to the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to thework done bythe employee but excluding any pay for overtime) paid to the employee in respect of the normal daily hours last worked by him or her before that public holiday.”

Where the relevant employee does not work on a day which is a public holiday, Regulation 5(2) provides:

“the relevant rate in respect of that public holiday shall be the sum that is equal to one-fifth of the sum (including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to the work done by the employee but excluding any pay for overtime) paid in respect of the normal weekly hours last worked by the employee before that public holiday,”

The Relevant Facts

It is the Complainant’s case that he was not paid for the public holiday on August 4th 2025.  I note the Respondent submits the Complainant received a day’s leave in lieu in respect of this public holiday. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered the 1997 Act, I find that the four lawful options open to an employer in order to be compliant with the requirements of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 are those set out and highlighted in section 21(1)(a-d) above. 

Having applied the law to the facts I am satisfied there has been no contravention of the impleaded legislation in circumstances where the Complainant has received a day leave in lieu.

Accordingly, I find this complaint as presented to be not well-founded. 

CA-00075774-001 claim pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00075774-002 claim pursuant to the Organistion of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.