ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048013
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anna Walsh Mc-Donagh | Community Nursing Services, Dublin North Hse |
Representatives | Self | Eamonn Ross Employee Relations Department |
Complaint(s):
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-00059027-001 | 26/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that: have not received any pay during a 6 month period from 1st Dec 2022 until 1st May 2023, I'm due in excess of 6,000 euro The Complaint form was lodged with the Commission on the 26th of September 2023.
Time would then run for a period of 6 months up to the date of lodging the complaint which would begin on 27th of March 2023.
On these facts the period before this tribunal would be from the 27th of March 2023 to the 1st May 2023 based on the Complainant’s claim.
The context of this claim relates to non-payment during a period of absence from work.
The Respondent stated that the period in question was in fact 27th of October 2022 the 21st of March 2023 and that the non-payment solely arose concerning the non-compliance with the occupational sick pay scheme rules. The Complainant has now met the requirement as set down in the scheme and all outstanding monies have been paid to her. That was done based on fairness and welfare considerations as it was not technically an obligation due to the Complainant’s omission.
The Complainant accepted that all outstanding monies had now been paid to her. However, in addition to that complaint she also wished for her resignation to be accepted by the HSE and as they were refusing to do so. Arising from this refusal she alleged that she could not obtain alternative work and receive social welfare payments.
They Respondent’s representative stated that he would bring this grievance to the attention of her line manager.
As the Complainant accepted that the payment had been made and in fact that it exceeds the period of loss before me, I must find that the matter has now been resolved. As the hearing the Complainant did state that she had received the monies claimed for. However, she also wished to progress her additional grievance. I find that pursuit of this complaint is misconceived as it is not properly before me for adjudication.
|
Preliminary Matter:
See background. The Complainant stated that her outstanding payments had been received. In these circumstances I find that continuing with this complaint is misconceived as the payments made exceed the amount that could be awarded for the relevant period before this tribunal.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
See Preliminary Matter The Complainant has received her full entitlement under the relevant occupational sick pay scheme. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
See Preliminary Matter The Respondent has paid all entitlements owing under the occupational sick pay scheme. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Wages in the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is defined 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 The key issue before me is whether the amount being claimed was due. Section 5 of the Act states: 5.— (1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless— As the monies alleged to be owing have now been paid and allowing for the statutory period to bring this complaint, I am satisfied that the Complainant has now been fully compensated and in fact has been paid more than what could be awarded based on the period referred to this tribunal. Section 5 (6) states: (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 satisfied that the Complainant has now received all monies owing to her and that the delay arose due to her omission to fulfil the requirements as set down in the scheme. Once she had done so the monies entitled to her were paid. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Based on the facts of this case I determine that the complaint is not well founded as all wages properly payable to her have been made. |
Dated: 21st November 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Rules of sick pay scheme. |