ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024014
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Doctor | A Public Body |
Representatives | Cathy Mc Grady, BL instructed by Farrell McElwee Solicitors | Employee Relations Manager |
Complaint:
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-00030527-001 | 28/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00033231-001 | 12/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26 November 2019 and 8 January 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This case concerns a claim for wages which the complainant, a Senior House Officer (SHO) asserts are properly payable to her. The claim is denied by the Respondent, a Public Body. On 18 November 2019, in preparation for the hearing, I wrote to the complainant’s representative seeking a brief written submission on the facts of the case. An issue arose in advance of the first day of hearing in November 2019, where the Respondent submitted that they had not been fully on notice of the complaint and had a prior commitment for attendance at interviews. A request for a postponement was subsequently refused and both parties attended on the scheduled date. On that occasion, the respondent sought an adjournment based on the earlier submissions. I heard some preliminary points from the parties in attendance on that day and decided that I needed to hear evidence from the pay determiners at the Voluntary Hospital in addition to additional background information. I agreed to briefly adjourn the hearing on that basis. I requested additional documentation from both parties. In the meantime, on 12 December 2019, the complainant submitted a replica claim to cover the intervening period from 28 August 2019 onwards. The respondent was agreeable to both claims being conjoined when we met again on January 8, 2020 and the reconvened hearing proceeded on that basis. Both parties submitted extensive written submissions and the complainant was permitted an opportunity to make an additional legal submission in response to the respondent tabled arguments at hearing. The respondents Solicitor furnished a replying submission to this. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant works as Senior House Officer (SHO) for a Public Body. She has worked across the Health services of Ireland and Australia since qualification in July 2016. The issue in this case is that the complainant has submitted that she has not received the salary properly payable to her and the resulting shortfall constituted an unlawful deduction in wages within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act ,1991. Counsel outlined the background to the case. The complainant commenced work in the role of Senior House Officer in July 2018 at a Voluntary hospital. While there, she was promoted to the role of Registrar in February 2019 and received an annual salary of €55, 871.90, the equivalent point of the Registrar level. The complainant exhibited a pay slip which reflected this arrangement. On 8 July 2019, the complainant took up work as a SHO (training post) at a state-run hospital. She expected to be continued on the salary earned at the Voluntary Hospital but was placed on point 2 of the SHO scale rather than an anticipated point 5. This resulted in a €9, 773 differential per annum on base salary and further differential on overtime calculation. The Complainants Solicitor addressed this shortfall and relied on clause 16(c) of the contract “An NCHD who takes up appointment as a SHO having previously held a registrar post will be placed on the equivalent point of the SHO salary scale “ On 20 August 2019 the respondent rejected this claim “in relation to the appointment of a doctor to the post of Registrar she should have at least 24 months post qualification (completion of internship) experience before being eligible for such an appointment “ And reaffirmed the 2nd point of the SHO scale as the correct starting point. They also interpreted the salary received at the Voluntary Hospital to that of a “local arrangement “which was not portable to the state-run hospital. The complainant was offended by this inequitable differentiation as the terms of the training scheme reflected that Trainees should not be disadvantaged by rotation as their service was continuous in the Irish Healthcare service. Counsel submitted that that Point 5 of the SHO salary scale was properly payable from the outset of her work at the state-run hospital. The complainant had 19-months post qualification experience at that time. Section 16(c) binds the employer to replicate the time spent as Registrar to the equivalent point of SHO scale as Point 5. In referring to ADJ 3726 where the complainant in the case sought application of an agreed salary and disputed the respondent reliance on “an error leading to an over statement of salary “The Adjudicator in that case held that “The contract of employment issued to the complainant is binding in law. The contractual wages outlined in that contract is the amount properly payable to the complainant “ The Adjudicator in the case decided that an illegal deduction had taken place and ordered rectification. Counsel contended that the Respondent could not retrospectively impose additional requirements to the complainant’s entitlement to be paid at point 5 of SHO scale and the respondent was obliged to pay her the rightful salary. Her loss stood at €5,332.30 up to 14 November 2019 and a projected annual loss of €17,032.00. The Complainant requested an opportunity to address the points made by the respondent at January 8 hearing. Counsel submitted that section 16(c) of the state hospital contract was neither linked to or conditional on any of the other named clauses and Section 16(c) was not conditional on the complainant holding 24 months service as a Registrar. The Dunnes Stores, Cornels Court was viewed as having no application. The instant case was focussed on a pure term of contract whereas Dunnes Stores was not. The respondent funded both posts at Voluntary Hospital and State Hospital. Counsel submitted that the complainant was on a careful reading of the contract entitled to retain point 1 of the Registrar scale as her operative salary on commencement at the State hospital. The complainant had a clear understanding that this computation would accompany her transition and by that it was unambiguous and should be interpreted accordingly. In the event that ambiguity was identified the respondent wished to rely on the contra preferendum rule where the narrow interpretation of “equivalent “ought to be applied to the benefit of the complainant an against the drafter. PMPA v Keenan, High Court, 1981/90 SP and HSE v Salam, FTD 132a expanded on. The complainant concluded by submitting that failure to honour the clear understanding of defined Salary portability constituted an unacceptable variance from properly payable wages which constituted an illegal deduction in wages for which she should be compensated from the commencement of the shortfall in July 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent operates a Public health service and has strongly refuted the claims advanced. The Respondent outlined that the complainant had undertaken an Internship as a Doctor across 3 sites from July 2016 to June 2017. The complainant then worked for a 4.5 months period in the Australian Health service before returning to work in the Irish health service as Locum SHO from 28 January 2018 to 3 July 2019, with short gaps in service. The respondent acknowledged that the complainant was regraded to Registrar to address a service imperative from February 2019 to July 2019 and referred to this as a local arrangement orchestrated by the Voluntary Hospital. The complainant is currently based at one of the respondent hospitals on a two-year rotational training programme as SHO. She is in receipt of a fixed term contract July 8, 2019 -July 2020. The respondent disputed the complainants submitted computation of her salary. The Respondent outlined how pay had been determined for the purposes of the live employment contract. i.e. July 2019. The respondent exhibited the contract which governed this period. The respondent outlined that the salary scale for the post was that of SHO to be revised in accordance with relevant national pay agreements. Incremental credit also applied for past service and is set down in Section 16 (a)-(K) and cited: In relation to the appointment of a Doctor to the post of Registrar, she should have at least 24 months post qualification (completion of internship) experience before being eligible for such an appointment. An NCHD will not be regarded as having incremental credit or previous experience at Registrar level unless they have worked for at least 3 months in a role which requires them to undertake the full range of duties associated with a Registrar post. An NCHD who takes up appointment as SHO having previously held a Registrar post will be placed on the equivalent point of the SHO salary scale. The respondent submitted that the complainant had not reached the 24-month window post qualification as SHO to satisfy her appointment as Registrar. This appointment did not hold currency for the complainant’s subsequent appointment at the state-run hospital and the respondent was not able to set aside the terms of conditions as SHO and replace it with Registrar Pay Scale. The Respondent had reviewed the totality of the complainant’s post qualification experience and had awarded point 2 and not point 5 of SHO salary scale with an upward alignment to point 3 planned for 8 March 2020. The Respondent had invited the Voluntary Hospital staff to the hearing who confirmed that the complainant had been paid as a Registrar at point 1 of the pay scale for 5 months. The Respondent added that the complainant had been deemed clinically suitable for the Registrar post and direct discussions had not ensued on the implications of the regrading to Registrar to satisfy an urgent clinical need at the hospital. Verification of service was required as supporting documentation. There had been a further review of agency service undertaken by the respondent which remained live and pointed to a month shortfall in the totality of the complainant’s actual incremental service. The respondent in relying on Dunnes Stores ltd v Lacey and Anor [2005] IEHC 417 disputed that point 5 on SHO pay scale constituted a properly payable salary for the complainant. The respondent introduced HR Circular 002/2019 on changes to NCHD contracts in terms of agency work and incremental credit for previous qualifications. While detailing that the matter at hand did not fall under this Circular, the respondent submitted that they were agreeable to the matter being referred to national Human Resources for assessment. The respondent included a confirmation dated 16 July 2019 that the complainant had been paid at 1st point of SHO scale with an incremental date of 9 March 2019 The respondent concluded by reaffirming that the complainant had signed a contract on 27 May 2019 which conferred an acceptance of the stated SHO terms a condition and the matter of seeking a preservation of Registrar salary commuted to point 5 SHO was not raised. The respondent was not prepared to allow the complainant to re write her contract. The Respondent submitted that there had been no contravention of the Payment of Wages Act,1991. The respondent received a copy of the respondent replying submission of 15 January and submitted a response dated January 30, 2020 summarised as: The provisions of section 16 of the contract must be read and not segmented. One sub section cannot be accepted as triumphing over the others. There was no ambiguity in the meaning of the contract and for the complainant to choose to rely on a subsection to the exclusion of all else would be “undesirable in the extreme”.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered the oral and written submissions raised by the parties in this case. There are two submitted complaints which are both addressed as: CA-00030527-001 lodged on 28 August 2019 and amended on September 11, 2019 with details of a submitted monthly loss of €416.00 over August and September,2019. This complaint form was underpopulated with particulars of the claim which prompted me to write to the Complainant in advance of the hearing in November 2019. CA-00033231-001 lodged on 18 December 2019. This referred to €389 shortfall in wages from 28 November 2019. Both complaints were accepted as conjoined by the WRC and I have addressed them accordingly. CA-00030527-001 and CA-00033231-001 This is the first in time complaint and was scant in the early submitted. The complaint was framed on “My employer has not paid me or has paid me less than the amount due to me “ This claim has since been well particularised and is summarised as the complainant secured year 1 Registrar pay for an almost 5-month period February to July 2019. This was set against a background of a NCHD/SHO contract and the assimilation to Registrar was led by a Clinical Colleague who identified an urgent need for which the complainant was deemed suitable. This is the pay scale which the complainant now contends should be used and superimposed on the SHO scale to reflect her current role as NCHD/SHO named clinical site. Salary of €55,871.90 rather than €46, 099.34. The respondent in rejecting the claim presented as aggrieved at having to address an issue not of their making, a legacy of the voluntary hospital. It was the respondent case throughout that they addressed the complainants pay in accordance with her signed contract of employment as NCHD/ SHO rather than Registrar and no illegal deduction had arisen from that action. For my part, I noted that the parties had not engaged in the recommended grievance procedure prior to engagement at WRC. There is clear provision for this in the contract of employment and a procedural progression may have assisted the parties. I went on to study both contracts of employment. 1. That of Contract of Employment for NCHD, a fixed purpose contract 17 February 2019 to 7 July 2019 as Registrar. This was flagged by an early pre-amble. This was clearly an Atypical contract as it was meant to commence on the second Monday of January or July. The appointment in mid-February confirmed the urgency of an appointment. I did not have the benefit of sight of the earlier contract of July 2018. The NCHD contract appears to incorporate persons employed as Interns, SHO, Registrar, Senior Registrar, Specialist Registrar for provision of service or pursuance of training. The grouping is distinguished by identification as a Doctor who is not yet a Consultant. For me it reads as a Hybrid and attracts different salaries for each of the gradings grouped under the umbrella of NCHD. 1 continuity of employment was contingent on Registration and on-going competence. 2 location was the Voluntary hospital 3 Salary as Registrar 4 Incremental Credit. Recognised training post and Agency work, subject to PSA 16(b) should have at least 24 months post qualification experience before being eligible for registrar 16(b) incremental credit flows post 3 months as Registrar 16(c) An NCH who takes up appointment as SHO having previously held a Registrar post will be placed on the equivalent point of the SHO salary scale 16(f) An NCHD who was employed in an EU Member State will be granted incremental credit for such experience …. incremental credit will be evaluated based on the NCHDs date of registration and subsequent experience. 16(I) Assimilation to Specialist Registrar salary scale: Year 2/3 SHO goes to 1st point 16(j) NCHD appointed to Senior Registrar with 3 or more years as Registrars will be granted one increment for each year or part thereof employed more than the first 3 years to a maximum of 3 increments 2. That of Fixed term contract 8 July 2019 to 12 January 2020 as a Senior House Officer (SHO) This commenced with a Pre-amble which provided: This contract takes precedence over any inconsistent provision in previously agreed documents regulating the terms and conditions of employment of NCHDs. Where this is any conflict between any provision of the contract document and any prior instrument, the provision in this contract should prevail. 1. Continuity of employment was contingent on a post dedicated as a Training Post 2. Location was a State Hospital 3. Salary as SHO 4. Section 16 corresponded with the earlier contract The Complainant then opened Hr/12/2017, a Circular which had at its core that rotation via different hospitals should not disadvantage a Trainee. “all NCHDs are provided with the NCHD contract 2010 for all periods of employment without exception “inclusive of private or voluntary hospital. Trainees are regarded as being in continuous service. Both parties were heavily conflicted on their respective interpretation of Section 16 of the latter-day contract, July 2019. The complainant holds a very clear view that once placed on point 1 of Registrar scale then this is a portable salary and a new baseline for a return to SHO scale. The complainant was placed on point 1 of registrar scale in February 2019 and retained the salary until her commencement to the respondent hospital where she was placed on year 2 SHO. The time spent as Registrar was entered this consideration from a time/ incremental basis but not a monetary basis. Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines wages as: “wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including— (a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and (b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: Section 5(1) of the Act prohibits a deduction in wages save by statute, contract or written permission. Section 5(6) addresses “properly payable “ (6) Where— (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. I am to decide whether Point 1 of the Registrar scale transposed to the SHO scale constituted the complainants properly payable salary from July 2019 onwards. From the first date of hearing, I wanted to know more about the facts of the emergence of the almost 5 months Registrar salary during an erstwhile SHO contract. Considering the Voluntary Hospital being an Associate Employer in terms of Fixed Term legislation, I asked the respondent to invite the Salary Administrators for the Voluntary Hospital to make a submission at hearing around this key antecedent event.I accept that employment was continuous since July 2018. Through this process, I learned that in February 2019, a critical clinical need gave rise at the Voluntary hospital to making an appointment at Registrar level and the complainant was deemed clinically suitable and appointed to the role .I also learned that the complainant had not been engaged in conversation regarding the parameters of this appointment and in particular the longevity of the pay scale which was markedly more favourable than her starting pay as SHO.I note that she signed a fixed term contract as Registrar. I found that the implications of accepting the role of Registrar were not actually explained to the complainant at any time during her appointment to this upwardly aligned position. I could not find any evidence of an assurance given by the Voluntary Hospital that the Registrar salary or equivalent would perpetuate .My attention was drawn to the finite time limit attached to the contract as Registrar . I can understand how the complainant formed a view as she did on the application of section 16 (c) of the July 2019 contract. However, I must probe further. In the seminal case of Sullivan v Department of Education [1998]9 ELR, the EAT engaged with the topic of “properly payable” and I have quoted from their deliberations. On that occasion, the EAT held for the complainant in accepting that she was properly entitled to an educational allowance linked to her degree . We consider the word ‘payable’ to be significant. Whereas Mr O’Rourke contended that there is no deduction where an employee continues to receive the same amount (and the same composition) of wages from the outset, the Tribunal considers that if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act. We take ‘payable’ to mean properly payable. The definition of ‘wages’ goes on to give examples of types of payments which can amount to ‘wages’ and states that the payments can amount to wages ‘whether payable under [his] contract of employment or otherwise ….’ Although in our view it is not simply a matter of what may have been agreed or arranged or indeed paid from the outset but, in the view of the Tribunal, all sums to which an employee is properly entitled. An employee may not be aware of his or her full entitlements and an employer may have a greater awareness of the employees entitlements in terms of pay etc. and it would be highly unjust for an employee to lose a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 for an unlawful deduction simply because an employer, being aware of the employee's proper entitlement, chose, unknown to the employee, to pay less than that from the outset. As to whether the primary degree (1st or 2nd honours) allowance was properly payable to Ms Sullivan we find that in all the circumstances it was. We are satisfied that the BA (single honours) programme was in all respects an honours degree programme and could not in any respect be considered to be a pass degree programme. We are satisfied that this is what was envisaged for that degree programme, that such was set up by the college authorities and indeed the Senate of the NUI through the normal evaluation process for university courses. I have considered the properly entitled heading referred to in Sullivan. The EAT drilled into how a finding which underpinned a” properly entitled” verdict prompted a positive decision on properly payable. In the instant case, I was struck by the differences in the Registrar role and that of the Training position of SHO. I noted the waiver clause contained in both contracts and signed by both parties. This provided that the July 2019 contract took precedence over any inconsistent provision in previously agreed documents regulating the terms and conditions of NCHD. The core issue in this case is the grouping of 5 different types of Doctors with five different pay groupings clustered under one umbrella of NCHD. I found this to be confusing. I noted that both positions pre and post July 2019 had different functions. The Registrar position carried a higher salary to the Training SHO position and the respondent was not keen to incur liability for a Registrars salary scale when the work was that of an SHO in training. This caused me to consider the wording of Section 16 of the July 2019 contract. This referred to Incremental Credit. The Complainant was awarded point 2 incremental credit at SHO position but sought to retain point 1 of the Registrar position into the post July 2019 contract. Incremental credit is an annualised additional credit for past service. I could not identify any clearly defined algorithm/ circular in relation to how time spent firstly as SHO, then Registrar, then a return to SHO should be reconciled for identification of a correct salary scale. The complainant identified S16 (c) in response. The respondent disputed this. I canvassed the party’s views on this and did not reach a conclusion. All I could find was section 10 on salary on both contracts. These sections were graded differently on each contract. One higher (Registrar)and one lower (SHO). I am satisfied that the complainant had more than 3 months service in the role of Registrar and appears to have made pension payments accordingly . The respondent classified the entire time spent by the complainant at the Voluntary Hospital in the hybrids of SHO/Registrar for incremental credit as SHO. They explained this was a universal practice. S16(b) suggests at first glance that incremental credit for time spent at Registrar can be married to a return to the SHO grade. There is a veiled suggestion that the Registrar salary might be superimposed on a SHO salary in Section 16(3) An NCHD who takes up appointment as SHO, having previously held a Registrar post will be placed on the equivalent point of the SHO scale. The key question in the case emerged in an email thread from the Respondent to the Voluntary Hospital and it said: Could you check what point of scale you were paying X as a SHO? The answer followed: 1st point SHO, incremental date of 9 March 2019 There was no mention of payment as a Registrar at that point. I realise that it is a rear-view comment, but I can only suggest that the parties should reflect on this exchange as an expansion of information on the payment of Registrar salary may have assisted in this vein. I considered the terms of the 2019 Human Resource Circular and did not draw any benefit for the facts of this case. I also identified that the facts of the case were somewhat distinguished from Dunnes, Cornels Court given the need for contractual interpretation in the instant case. I found some persuasive guidance in the musings of Finlay CJ in Michael Wiley and Revenue Commissioners [1993] ILRM 482. This was a case concerning a disabled driver and his quest for repayment of VAT/ excise duty on the purchase of a car. He had received the payments previously for 2 cars and was subsequently rejected when his condition was not found to have satisfied the defined description of disability. The Supreme Court in rejecting his appeal found that his expectation to succeed while real was not a legitimate expectation and the respondent in the case was without a statutory power to concede. The most he could expect was that he might be given such a repayment, an expectation arising from the fact that he was given it in previous years. In those circumstances the learned trial judge decided that the absence of a legitimate expectation, as distinct from an expectation, defeated the only claim which the plaintiff was making. I would concur in that decision on the basis on which it was given and on the findings of fact and inferences from them upon which the learned trial judge based his view. Such a principle applies as between two parties of any description who are in relation to each other concerning rights or privileges or habitual concessions. An additional feature, however, in my view, also arises in this case which would independently defeat the plaintiff's claim. The Revenue Commissioners are a statutory body who can only act pursuant to statutory powers vested in them. As of 1987, they did not have any statutory power to grant repayments by way of concession of excise duties, otherwise than in accordance with the scheme which they had put in operation and which had received, one presumes, the consent of the Minister for Finance. For them to repay excise duty on a motor car to a person who was disabled but who did not come within the approved scheme, would be ultra vires and a breach of their statutory obligation to collect excise duties, except where they were validly exempted or avoided. There is in this case no question of a promise by the Revenue Commissioners to do any particular thing in 1987, and I am satisfied that quite independently of the more generally applicable principle of legitimate expectation and the limit it may impose on that doctrine, that this applicant could not pursue on the basis of expectation a remedy which would involve the carrying out by the statutory authority, the Revenue Commissioners, of activities which they were not empowered to carry out, and the payment or repayment of monies which they were not empowered to pay or repay. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal. In this case the complainant has relied on the “equivalent “point of SHO and has submitted that this is properly payable at year 5. Yet the complainant is my opinion bound by the terms of section 16 of the July 2019 contract. 1. Incremental credit is for previous employment in Ireland or EU, allowing an accommodation for a limit of one increment for time spent at Agency. The complainant qualified in July 2016 and had not accumulated 5 years services at the point of her claim in July 2019. The SHO scale 7 points. It was of note that point 5 SHO scale mirrors point 1 Registrar. 2. Equivalent Point reflected in Section 16(c) must be deemed to mean equal or interchangeable in value, Collins Dictionary. 3. Section 16(f) outlines that incremental credit will be evaluated on the basis of NCHD date of registration and subsequent experience for NCHD working in EU Member state In this case, the Respondent has decided not to recognise the time spent by the complainant as a Registrar for anything other than continuity of service as a SHO. They have not recognised the legitimacy of the appointment to Registrar, given that it was made with insufficient post qualification experience. I cannot identify any firm assurance given to the complainant that her salary as a Registrar would perpetuate beyond the Voluntary Hospital.I am mindful that she paid pension contributions as a Registrar. I am unwilling to engage further in interference in the actions of the respondent administration as a State body. For my part, I must outline that placing the complainant on a year 5 salary scale in respect of an almost 5-month experience as a Registrar in the absence of an enabling Circular on Rules of Assimilation would seem inequitable and open to challenge. I have not found a “proper entitlement” arising as a result. I have not found the need to apply the contra preferendum rule here as I have not identified ambiguity. Instead, based on the evidence before me, I have identified that the expectation held by the complainant cannot on this occasion be raised to a legitimate expectation to attain year 5 SHO salary. I have not found that the salary of year 5 SHO was properly payable on this occasion. I have, however, identified an insufficient explanation of the interface of Registrar salary with a return to a Training post on behalf of the Voluntary Hospital. CA-00030527-001 I find the claim is not well founded. Sullivan distinguished. CA-00033231-001 I find the claim is not well founded. Sullivan distinguished. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. CA-00030527-001 I find the claim is not well founded. CA-00033231-001 I find the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 20th April 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Under payment of wages |