Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Civil Servant

A Government Department

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00024949-001

The complainant had sought a promotion but for which there were separate criteria; seniority and merit.

In due course she was appointed on the basis of seniority but the effective date for appointment was only to July 1st, 2016.

Had she been appointed on the merit basis this would have been retrospective to 2013.

She also complained about the conduct of the promotional competition, and various aspects of the marking.

She now complains that the failure to appoint her from the date she seeks in 2013 is a breach of the Payment of Wages Act.

The respondent says that this is a dispute about an administrative decision and does not arise under the Payment of Wages Act as there has been no unlawful deduction or failure to pay wages properly due to the complainant. In fact, the complainant’s wages have increased in the period.

In fact, the complainant’s promotion was effective from 2016 and she is seeking to have it made effective from 2013.

This is a dispute about personnel procedures and processes within the respondent’s organisation but cannot be challenged under the Payment of Wages Act.

The net point here is clear from the submissions of the parties.

The somewhat confusing narrative about the respondent’s promotional arrangements, and the complainant’s experience of the competition do nothing to bring the complaint within the ambit of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Most of the complainant’s submission was entirely irrelevant.

There has been no deduction based on any recognisable interpretation of the provisions of the Act, nor has there been any failure to pay wages that are ‘properly payable’.

The complainant appears to argue that if her promotion had been approved under different rules wages at a higher rate would have been properly payable, but the simple fact is that until the promotion was actually approved they were not.

There was no contractual obligation to pay wages to the complainant which was not applied.

The complainant appeared to misunderstand the jurisdiction of the Act as it applied to the facts of her case and the complaint is entirely misconceived.

The complaint fails.

For the reason set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00024949-001 and it is dismissed.

Payment of Wages