FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : L CONNAUGHTON AND SONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY HRS CONSULTANTS) - AND - YVONNE HEALY DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No. ADJ-00026761. The Complainant lodged a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, ‘the Act’, with the Workplace Relations Commission. The Adjudication Officer upheld the claim. The Respondent appealed that Decision to this Court. Summary of Respondent arguments The claim was made outside the time limits provided for in s.6(4) of the Act. An offer of a pay increase was made to the Complainant in September 2016 but it is not clear if this was ever accepted. The Complainant never raised non implementation of the pay increase with the Respondent and, therefore, through custom and practice, the existing terms of her contract remained in place. The Respondent provided a number of improved conditions to the Complainant above those provided for in her contract. Summary of Complainant arguments An offer of a 4% pay increase was made and accepted in writing. The failure to apply this increase only came to light when the Complainant left the employment. This increase forms part of the Complainant’s contract and is payable in accordance with the Act. The applicable law Payment of Wages Act 1991 “ wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—
(a) any act or omission of the employee, or
Workplace Relations Act 2015 41. - (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. 8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause. Deliberation and Determination In the course of the hearing, the Respondent’s representative agreed that an offer of a 4% pay increase had been made and accepted in September 2016. This then formed part of the Complainant’s contracted wages. The question of time limits in respect of claims under the Act was set out with great clarity in Health Service Executive v. John McDermott (2014) IEHC 331. Hogan J. in that case held that ‘there is a rolling time limit in the law’ and that time runs for the purposes of the Act from the date of contravention ‘to which the complaint relates’ and not from the first contravention. As the Respondent continued in their failure to pay the Complainant her contracted wages which were properly payable under the Act, they continued in breach of s.5(1) of the Act, as set out above, until the date that the employment relationship was terminated. The Complainant referred her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 29 January 2020. The cognisable six month period, therefore, is from 30 July 2019 until the date of the complaint. In the course of the hearing, it was accepted for the Complainant that her proper wage should have been €488.90 per week rather than the €470.10 that she was paid, a difference of €18.80 per week. This means that the Complainant is owed €18.80 x by 26 weeks =€488.80 and the Court determines that this amount should be paid to the Complainant, subject to lawful deductions. This calculation differs from that of the Adjudication Officer. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary. |