Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pádraig McMahon

Opentext

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mark O’Connell BL instructed by Dillon Eustace LLP

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-00035580-001

04/04/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00039433-001

30/08/2020

The Complainant worked as Technical Support Manager with the Respondent and commenced employment with the Respondent in November 2014. The Respondent company creates enterprise software for business clients. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 12 June 2020 by reason of redundancy which the complaint submits was an unfair dismissal. This complaint was addressed in decision ADJ-00028216.

 The Complainant claims that the Respondent owes him wages on account of what he perceives were incorrect deductions during a period of illness in 2019-2020 in breach of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the 1991 Act).

The Complainant further claims that his terms of employment were changed without notification to him in breach of section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. (the 1994 Act)

The Respondent denies both claims.

CA-00035580-001 Payment of Wages Complaint:

The Complainant stated that he was not paid his full entitlement to wages/sick pay during a period of illness towards the end of 2019, and into 2020. The Complainant accepted that he could not identify the sum owed to him, nor describe the specific unlawful actions of the Respondent within the relevant cognisable period under the 1991 Act.

CA-00039433-001: Terms of Employment Complaint.

The Complainant submits that he had been on an incorrect Job Code for a number of years and that he discovered this anomaly only after he had raised a grievance with the Respondent. He submits that the Respondent should have notified him of such a change and that its failure to do so was a breach of section 5 of the 1994 Act. 

CA-00035580-001 Payment of Wages Complaint:

The Respondent argues that the Complainant has failed to make out a case and that the complaint should be dismissed.

CA-00039433-001: Terms of Employment Complaint.

A HR manager for Ireland with the Respondent gave evidence under affirmation that the Respondent’s Job Codes system was not a rigid system, and that salary was determined on an individual basis based on factors like education, experience, and competency.

The Respondent submits that there was no change in the Complainant’s contract that could be classed as a breach of section 5 of the 1994 Act.

CA-00035580-001 Payment of Wages Complaint:

There is an initial burden of proof to make out a stateable case under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. In this case the Complainant made a vague assertion of unlawful deduction of wages without any documentary evidence, or otherwise give verbal evidence of the nature or amount of the sum being claimed. I find that the complaint was not well founded.

CA-00039433-001: Terms of Employment Complaint.

Section 5 of the 1994 act provides:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than–

(a) 1 month after the change takes effect, or

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee's departure.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute [other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order] or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.

The Complainant’s original contract of employment, including the terms as stipulated under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the 1994 Act, was exhibited. No reference was made to Job Codes nor did the contract otherwise identify a code originally attributed to the Complainant. Therefore, I find that any change in Job Codes that might have subsequently transpired was not covered under the notification requirement of section 5 of the 1994 Act. I therefore find that the complaint was not well founded.

CA-00035580-001 Payment of Wages Complaint:

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was not well founded.

CA-00039433-001: Terms of Employment Complaint.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act 1991, Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994