EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Sheila Pyne, - appellant PW113/2013
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Archdiocese of Dublin - respondent
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran B.L.
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr J. Maher
heard this appeal at Dublin on 19th March 2014
Representation:
Appellant(s) : Mr. Brendan Byrne, Amicus, 15 Merrion Square, Dublin 2
Respondent(s) : Ms. Claire Hellen, IBEC,
Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case came before the Tribunal by way of the employee (the appellant) appealing against the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (reference: r-123963-pw-12/JW.
Preliminary Issues
The respondent’s representative stated that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal as the appellants has not fulfilled the requirements as specified under section 7(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. This section states:
“An appeal under this section shall be initiated by a party by his giving, within 6 weeks of the date on which the decision to which it relates was communicated to him -
(a) a notice in writing to the Tribunal containing such particulars (if any) as may
be specified in regulations under subsection (3) and stating the intention of the
party concerned to appeal against the decision, and
(b) a copy of the notice to the other party concerned”
Determination on the Preliminary Issues
On the first preliminary matter the Tribunal are satisfied that on the balance of probability the appellant did comply with Section 7 (2) (b) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by copying the appeal to the respondent within the statutory six week timeline.
On the second preliminary matter the Tribunal considered all of the submissions and case law adduced at the hearing. The Tribunal also note the decision of Edwards J. in the High Court case of Michael McKenzie and others and Ireland and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence Rec. No. 2009. 551JR and in particular paragraph 5.8 thereof where the learned Judge states that the Payment of Wages Act has no application to reductions as distinct from “deductions”.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the appeal is unsuccessful, and the decision of the Rights Commissioner is upheld.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)