Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

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-00053634-001

09/11/2022

The Complainant has pursued a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant entered into a termination agreement with the Respondent, and her complaint pertains to some deductions made from the sum she received under the terms of that termination agreement (some of which pertained to disputed expenses).

Under the agreement, the Complainant was to receive €16,176.57 in lieu of her three months’ contractual notice period and €35,000 ex gratia payment.

The Complainant did receive €16,176.57 notice pay through payroll as per the terms of the agreement; and she further received a separate ex gratia payment in the amount of €30,622.31 (€35,000 minus €4,377.69).

It is the deficit of €4,377.69 which forms the subject matter of this complaint. It is the Complainant’s case that those deductions are unlawful, which is denied by the Respondent.

In response to enquiries made by the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant confirmed that she had had an opportunity to take legal advice and did in fact take legal advice, prior to the signing of the  termination agreement. She also confirmed that the Respondent made a final contribution towards the Complainant’s legal fees, in the amount of €400, in relation to the signing of the agreement.

It is the Respondent’s case that the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, that the enforcement of a legally enforceable termination agreement is a matter for another forum; that the Complainant entered freely into the agreement and had the benefit of legal advice, along with a contribution to her legal costs paid by the Respondent, that (for completeness) the deductions are not unlawful – they come under the terms of a legally enforceable termination agreement, but in any case, the Respondent submits that the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Of her own volition, the Adjudication Officer has chosen to anonymise the decision in this case, as the proceedings herein which are misconceived and which I am satisfied I have no jurisdiction to entertain, pertain to a legally enforceable termination agreement, one of the terms of which is confidentiality. As such, I find that ‘special circumstances’ apply in this regard.

I find for the Respondent.

I find that that these proceedings are misconceived.

I am satisfied that these proceedings pertain to a legally enforceable termination agreement, the enforcement of which is a matter for another forum.

I am satisfied that the Complainant had access to legal advice prior to the signing of the agreement, that she did in fact avail of legal advice prior to signing the agreement, and that the Respondent made a financial contribution in the amount of €400 to the Complainant’s legal costs pertaining to the signing of the agreement.

For completeness, some of the deductions of which the Complainant has complained pertain to expenses, which are the subject of a specific exemption under s. 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, in any case. However, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to entertain these proceedings.

As I am satisfied that these proceedings relate to a legally enforceable contract, one of the terms of which is confidentiality, and that I do not have jurisdiction to entertain these misconceived proceedings, I have anonymised the proceedings herein, on the basis that “special circumstances” apply.

Termination Agreement; Misconceived; Jurisdiction; No jurisdiction to entertain;