Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Risk Specialist

A Bank

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-00017412-001

13/02/2018

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent bank on June 26th 2017. She handed in her notice on December 24th that year and finished up on January 19th 2018. This complaint is a claim for a payment for hours that the complainant worked in excess of the standard working week of 36.25 hours. She claims that during her 30 weeks of employ that she worked with the company, she worked more than 54 hours of overtime for which she was not paid.   She claims that she is owed “roughly €1,600” in respect of these hours.

The complainant was a Risk Specialist, working in the Risk, Governance and Strategy Unit of the bank. One of the aspects of her role involved the preparation of papers for monthly meetings of the Group Risk Committee and the Board Risk and Compliance Committee.   Because of papers being presented at the last minute by participants on these committees, the complainant said that, on a regular basis, she was required to work late to compile papers, resulting in her exceeding the normal working day of 7.25 hours.

From the commencement of her employment, the complainant said that she had reviews every two weeks with her manager. Having commenced in June 2017, in August, they had a meeting at which the complainant’s line manager said that she needed “more of a time commitment” from her. The complainant was also required to attend the monthly meeting of the Board Risk and Compliance Committee which started at 8.15am, which, the complainant said, is 45 minutes before her normal starting time. In an e mail on August 25th, she asked her manager if she was required to work this additional 45 minutes on top of the standard requirement of 7.25 hours. In the same e mail, she said that she understood “that there is no overtime or time in lieu in relation to these working hours.”

Around this time, the complainant said that she was feeling “very vulnerable” in relation to her working hours, and she looked for advice from the union. A union representative advised her to try to get agreement about the additional hours. In the end, she said that she agreed to work the hours that she was requested to work, but she was disappointed that she was not paid for them.   At the hearing, she said that she didn’t think this was fair.

Following the discussion with her manager in August 2017, the complainant said that things “went downhill” and, due to her family circumstances, she couldn’t be as flexible as she had been. She said that she was being “micro-managed” and she approached the union again for advice. She also went to speak to her manager’s boss. In the end, when she felt that she couldn’t give the commitment that was required, she decided to resign and she gave in her notice on December 22nd 2017.

For the respondent, the solicitor who attended the hearing said that the complainant was a Risk Specialist at grade level 4 and her salary of €55,000 reflected a requirement to work extra hours to meet the deadlines associated with her role.   She said that roles at this level in the business do not attract overtime payments. The complainant’s contract of employment was submitted in evidence. Clause 3 refers to hours of work:

“Your normal hours of work will be 7.25 hours per day, 36.25 hours per week, exclusive of lunch times. Your normal working week will be five days, Monday to Friday between the hours of 8.00am to 6.00p. Start and finish times and daily / weekly / monthly working arrangements are determined locally by your Line Manager. You also agree, if necessary, to be rostered to cover late nights, Saturday / Sunday trading. Working hours are administered in accordance with the provision of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Full details are available on the Company intranet site. Due to the nature of this position, overtime is not paid.”

The bank’s position is that the complainant has no contractual entitlement to overtime and that they are not in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as there has been no deduction from her wages.

The complainant was required to clock in and out of work each morning and evening and at the beginning and end of lunchtime and her working hours were recorded on the bank’s electronic time and attendance system. Any minutes or hours more than 7.25 hours per day were automatically recorded as a balance in excess of the core time. During the six months that the complainant was employed, evidence was presented of a balance in excess of core time of 54 hours and 40 minutes.   A table produced by the respondent shows in some weeks during this period, around the time that reports were submitted to the two committees, the complainant worked from three and a quarter hours and six and a quarter hours in excess of 36.25 hours, resulting in an extra 27 hours’ worked. The other 27 hours are comprised of additional minutes each day over and above 36.25 hours, across the six-month timeframe.

For the bank, the solicitor said that on her first day of employment, the complainant raised the issue of working time with her manager, seeking clarity on what was expected of her.   An e mail exchange between the complainant and her manager was submitted in evidence, which shows that the line manager told the complainant that her job was subject to tight deadlines but that she would provide advance notice of “pressure point” days where an early start or a late finish was required and that she would ensure that the workload was shared among the team. In the e mail, the line manager offered to have further discussions on the matter in order to come to a solution with “give and take” on both sides.

The solicitor for the bank said that the complainant’s line manager acknowledged that the complainant had family commitments and she was committed to providing flexibility within the confines of the role. The complainant was clear from the start of the requirement to meet the reporting deadlines, as this was communicated to her in the first instance during the recruitment process.

It is evident from the complainant’s contract of employment that she was required to work hours in addition to the weekly core hours of 36.25. Her contract is clear that there was to be no additional pay for these extra hours. The bank’s position is that some extra hours would be required to ensure that paperwork was prepared for certain monthly committee meetings, but overtime was not appropriate to this professional level role, at a salary of €55,000. The complainant argued against this position, saying that she didn’t see it was relevant.

Between her start and finish date with the respondent, the complainant worked for 30 weeks. If we add the excess of 54 hours and 40 minutes to her weekly commitment of 36.25 hours, we get a total of 1,142 hours, an average of 38 hours per week. This is equivalent to 1.75 extra hours per week. It is my view that as an employee of a professional organisation on a salary of €55,000, it was not unreasonable to work this number of extra hours and I agree with the respondent that this requirement was clearly set out in the complainant’s contract of employment. Although working these extra hours may have interfered with the complainant’s family commitments, it is my view that the requirement was not excessive. On this basis, I find that the complainant is not entitled to a payment for overtime.      

During the course of her employment, it is clear that there was no deduction from the complainant’s wages, and therefore, I find that there was no breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I have decided that there was no breach of the Payment of Wages Act as alleged by the complainant and this complaint is not upheld.

Contractual requirement to work overtime, non-payment for overtime