Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  O'Leary

Galway City Council

Representatives

Amanda Kane

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-00050887-001

27/05/2022

The Complainant is seeking reimbursement for a differential in pay compared with comparable co-workers dating back to 2001.

The Complainant, Ms. O’ Leary started working for the Respondent in 2001. She was not aware of any staffing structures at that point. Over the years she had various contracts, all of which were at   grade 4. As time went on, she became aware that she was being considered as a temporary employee only, despite having the service making her eligible for a contract of indefinite duration.  The Complainant got advice on the point and was informed that she should have been given a contract of indefinite duration. She applied for one. Her application was successful, and she was given that contract of indefinite duration in 2012.

When information in relation to a core flexitime system was circulated to all staff, she became aware of the different working hours of the different staff. She made representations to her supervisor. Nothing came of that. On foot of that, she decided to do something more formal about it. She was told that the core flexitime did not apply to her as she worked 39 hours. It only applied to staff who worked 35 hours or less, as far as she is aware. In January 2020 she applied to HR formally. She felt that she had worked extra hours every year from the day she started with the Respondent, and she was not paid for that. Her colleagues, of the same grade, were working less hours, were paid the same as her and were eligible for the core flexitime system. Following receipt of her formal complaint Galway City Council agreed to change her hours to 35.15 per week in November 2020. That has seen being reduced to 35 hours per week.  She then decided to seek reimbursement for the difference in the pay going back to 2001. It was for approximately 4 hours per week.

On 1st December 2020 the Complainant applied for the reimbursement. She was informed that she had to raise a formal grievance. She did not know how to do that however she wrote to HR on 16th March raising a formal grievance in relation to the pay differential.  A meeting was arranged for the 16th June 2021. The meeting when ahead. Following the meeting she was given the impression that some form of compensation would be given. She was expecting an offer to be made but that never happened. The Complainant contacted HR on numerous occasions. She was informed that someone would get back to her. It wasn’t until 22 March 2022 that she got a response. She was informed that she was not entitled to compensation arising from the issue set out in her grievance. She appealed that decision on 9th March. She received a response on the 22nd March stating that the appeal was not being upheld. She was never asked to submit anything in relation to the appeal and there was no appeal meeting.

Following on from the appeal decision she decided to file her claim with the WRC. She did so on the 27.05.2022.

Preliminary issue.

The Complainant submitted her claim on the 27th May 2022. The cognisable period of the complaint is six months immediately prior to the filing of the complaint. That is 27th November 2021 – 27th May 2021. The Complainant has not presented a complaint relating to a contravention of the act alleged to have occurred on any specific date or dates within the six months period before she filed her complaint with the WRC. The complaint is therefore statute barred.

In addition to the preliminary point:

The Complainant is seeking compensation for the difference in hours compared to other workers. Her previous contract was for 39 hours and she is paid for those 39 hours. Therefore, there is no breach of her contract and arising from that there can be no unlawful deductions. When her hours of work were revised to 35.15. and then 35 hours per week, she was paid in accordance with the new agreed contractual hours. In those circumstances there can be no unlawful deductions.  

Preliminary Point.

The Complainant filed her claim with the WRC on the 27.05.2022. The time period relevant to that complaint pursuant Section 41 (6) of the Act is as follows:

“ Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officers 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 contravention to which the complaint relates”.

The parties agree that the Complainants contractual hours were reduced to 35.15 hour per week on the 23.11.2020. Her pay was altered accordingly. Her hours have since been reduced further to 35 hours per week and again her pay has been adjusted accordingly. The time period the Complainant takes issue with is from the commencement of her employment in 2001 up to November 2020. Her complaint was filed on the 27.05.2022. Therefore, her complaint is out of time, and I do not have jurisdiction to hear it. Even if I extended the time by a further six months pursuant to subsection (8) the complaint would still be out of time. Unfortunately, in those circumstances I must find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

The complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

Unlawful deductions. Relevant time period. Contractual terms. Statute barred.