Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Physics and Maths Teacher

Government Department

Representatives

Diarmaid De Paor ASTI

Louis Cunningham

Dept. of Education and Skills

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-00014798-001

05/10/2017

The Complainant worked in a post primary school as a physics and maths teacher. He commenced employment on the 9th of October 2014.

His claim related to recognition of his years teaching overseas before he commenced working in the post primary school in 2014 for incremental credits.

He worked as a teacher in a bilingual school in Kuwait from the 1st of September 2010 to the 31st of August 2011 and in an English school also in Kuwait from the 1st of September 2011 to the 31st of August 2013. He then worked in an international school in Nairobi in Kenya from the 1st of September 2013 to the 31st of August 2014.

The Complainant applied for incremental credit in respect of this teaching service overseas. His application was first refused on the 12th of April 2016.

He sought to appeal his decision and did so by email on the 25th of May 2016. In his email, he set out to demonstrate how his teaching service obtained overseas was equivalent to approved teaching service.

His appeal was not accepted by the department. The department further went on to set out second grounds for the refusal and third grounds for the refusal.

The department relied on Circular 29/2007 which provides for the award of incremental credit.

The Respondent’s case is that the Complainant applied to the Department to be awarded incremental credit for previous teaching experience outside of Ireland/the EU.

His application did not meet the criteria for the award of incremental credit as the schools in which he worked as a teacher were private schools located outside of the EU.

Incremental credit is only given in respect of service in a teaching post in private schools within Ireland or the EU and is awarded under Circular 29/2010.

The Respondent further went on to rely on Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act and the definition of deduction.   The Respondent contended that no deduction had been made to the Complainant’s wages. He had at all times received the salary which was properly payable to him under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I have considered the submissions of the parties both submitted to me orally and in writing.

I have read Circular 29/2007.   The clause therein relied upon by the Complainant is clause 6(a)(i). This refers to teaching service in Non- EU countries:

   i.          Whole-time teaching service given in a Non-Member State of the EU and demonstrated by the teacher, to the satisfaction of the Department… (emphasis added) to be equivalent to approved teaching service may be regarding as approved teaching service for the purposes of this subsection.

There clearly is not an automatic entitlement to the overseas service being considered reckonable service. The Respondent had not been satisfied as to the equivalence of the teaching service.

The increment was not granted to the Complainant nor was not guaranteed to the Complainant.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the payment of the increment is “properly payable” under the definition of wages in the Payment of Wages Act.

The difference between the Complainant’s expectations and the wages paid by the Respondent does not fall within an infringement of Section 5 as defined by the Act.

I find that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.

Incremental credit for teaching experience outside of Ireland/the EU