Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Senior Psychologist

A Health Service provider

Representatives

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-00028057-001

30/04/2019

The Complainant claims that his employer had paid him less than the amount due to him and had promised him that he would remain in a temporary Senior Clinical Psychologist post until the post was filled permanently from a national panel.

The Respondent said the case under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is moot as all money owed to the Complainant was paid to him recently.

The Complainant said that he started in his current post as Senior Clinical Psychologist in August 2017. At this time, his contract was for a temporary (12 month), full-time position. He said that he holds a substantive, full-time, permanent Staff Grade post in the Respondent’s Adult Mental Health Services.

He said that in June 2018, he spoke with his manager, Dr. A about the possibility of a further extension to his temporary contract. Dr. A subsequently informed him that a 3-month extension and then a 12-month extension had been agreed respectively.

The Complainant said that he was instructed by Dr. A, to remain in a post in Disability Services and continue in his current role as Senior Psychologist. He said that at no point did he receive any form of communication, either written or verbal, notifying him to return to his substantive post. Notwithstanding this agreement, once his initial contract ended in August 2018, his pay reverted to a Staff Grade Psychologist salary.

He said that over 12 months and 26 pay periods have since passed and this issue still remains unresolved. Throughout this time, he has continued to carry out his duties to the full extent as Senior Psychologist. Furthermore, he was placed on the national Senior Grade Psychology panel in spring, 2017 and since starting his post in August 2017, he has not pursued a number of job opportunities.

He claims that he is owed €20,000 approximately.

On the day of the hearing the Complainant accepted that the money owning to him was paid in advance of the hearing. However, he had introduced some other issues on the day of the hearing in relation to promises made to him and he asked if they could be now considered.

The Respondent raised as a preliminary point that the complaint referred by the Complainant refers to an infringement which he claims occurred on 20 September 2018. However, the referral was made on 30 April 2019. The complaint was not referred within the time limit and is statute barred.

The Respondent said that the case before the WRC is moot, since the initial referral of the complaint to the WRC approval was sought and received to pay the Complainant all the monies, he claims that were owed to him.

The other matters raised are not correctly before the WRC for consideration

The Relevant Law

Section 5 of the Act states -

(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

I note that Section 5(2) of the Act sets out the conditions according to which an employer may make a deduction from an employee’s wages:

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction.

Having met the parties on the day of the hearing I am satisfied that the complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act and money owing was resolved sometime before the hearing.

I note that the elements that the Complainant wants me, as adjudicator, to consider relate to other matters. I have quoted above the relevant provisions that I have jurisdiction to consider under the Payment of Wages Act. The case presented to me by the Complainant does not relate to the deduction from the wages and therefore I am satisfied these additional matters are not before me in relation to this complaint.

I declare that the complaint is not well founded.  

Payment of Wages Act – money paid – other matters – not well-founded.