EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS OF: CASE NO.
Peter Beirne, - appellant 1 PW263/2012
Anthony Edwards, - appellant 2 PW264/2012
Marie Clohessy, - appellant 3 PW265/2012
Bernadette Roche, - appellant 4 PW266/2012
Marie Browne, - appellant 5 PW267/2012
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Clare County Council, - respondent
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. Clancy
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Murphy
heard this appeal at Ennis on 19th February 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant: Mr. Andy Pike, Impact, Assistant General Secretary, Father Mathew Quay, Cork
Respondent: Local Government Management Services Board, Local Government House,
35-37 Ushers Quay, Dublin 8
Background
The appellant’s are appealing the Rights Commissioner Decisions ref: r-100608-pw-10, r-100609-pw-10, r-100610-pw-10, r-100611-pw-10, r-100613-pw-10 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
The appellants’ work for a state body and are therefore bound by civil service pay regulations. On appointment to their current positions, the appellants’ were all immediately placed on point one of the long service increment scale. They are claiming that after three years they should have been entitled to move to the second point of the LSI scale.
Firstly, the respondent contends that the rules governing the LSI scale dictate that a person must spend 6 years on the first point of the LSI scale before moving to the second point of the scale. Secondly, the non-payment of an increment is not considered a deduction as per the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Determination
The Tribunal, in considering this case, are cognisant of the judgement made in the McKenzie case (Michael McKenzie and others and Ireland and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence Rec. No. 2009. 551JR ) and the fact that they are bound by it. The judgement of the High Court states,
‘5.8 Finally, the Court agrees with the respondents’ submission that the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 has no application in the circumstances of this case. First, as has been pointed out, correctly in the Court’s view, the reduction in the PDF allowance is not a “deduction” from wages payable. It is a reduction of the allowance payable. The Act has no application to reductions as distinct from “deductions”.’
The increment that may or may not be due to the appellants’ is not a deduction as prescribed in the Payment of Wages Act. The Tribunal find that the employee appeal of the Rights Commissioner Decisions ref: r-100608-pw-10, r-100609-pw-10, r-100610-pw-10, r-100611-pw-10, r-100613-pw-10 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)