Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rolf  Zoschke

Irish Prison Service

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Ciaran White McGovern Walsh Solicitors

Kevin Cooke Solicitor IPS

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-00060735-001

24/12/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00060735-002

24/12/2023

The claimant is employed as a Prison Officer with the respondent since the 18th.Feb. 2019.He submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to notify him of their proposal to effect deductions from his wages at the end of January 2023, the 28th.June 2023 and the 9th.August 2023 for alleged overpayments made to the claimant during a protracted period of sick leave. The respondent denies the claim and submitted that the claimant was at all times paid in accordance with established processes and mechanisms and asserted there was no breach of the Act

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

1.     The Claim

1.2      The Complainant seeks the investigation and adjudication of his complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and under Circular Number 07/2018 - Recovery of Salary, Allowances and Expenses Overpayments made to Staff members/Former Staff Members/Pensioners.

2.      Background to Employment

2.1.1        The Respondent is a State Body which is responsible for the operations and management of prisons in Ireland.

2.1.2         The Complainant is an Irish Prison Officer who commenced employment with the Irish Prison Service on the 18th February 2019 and currently carries out his duties at Castlerea Prison, Harristown, Castlerea in the County of Roscommon. 

3.     Background to Claim

3.1.1        The complainant has submitted two claims seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the payment of Wages Act 1991; CA-00060735-001 and CA-00060735-002. Complaints under references CA-00060734-001 and CA-00060734-002 are duplications and have been withdrawn.

3.1.2          These claims are in relation to what the complainant alleges are unlawful deductions from his wages as follows; €1,565.00 on the 28th June 2023 and €6,079.00 on the 9th August 2023.

3.1.3         On the 26th March 2022 the complainant was involved in an altercation at Castlerea Prison where he subsequently received a wrist injury causing him to be absent from work from the 26th March 2022 to the 31st May 2022. The complainant received sick pay during this time.

3.1.4         On the 28th November 2022 the Complainant was taken ill after inhaling smoke fumes during a cell fire at Castlerea Prison. The complainant was on sick leave from the 28th November 2022 until the 7th July 2023 and received sick pay during this time.

3.1.5         On the 6th June 2023, the Complainant was informed by letter from the Human Resources Directorate of the Irish Prison Service that he had been placed on half rate of pay from the 18th January 2023 and that he had exhausted his entitlements to sick leave with pay on the 31st March 2023 and had been removed from the payroll from the 1st April 2023.

3.1.6         On the 28th June 2023, the Complainant received notification in his payslip of a deduction of €1,565.00 as a result of overpay.

3.1.7         On the 19th July 2023, the Complainant was informed by letter from the Human Resources Directorate of the Irish Prison Service that he had been placed on half rate of pay from the 7th March 2023 and that he had exhausted his entitlements to sick leave with pay on the 31st March 2023 and had been removed from the payroll from the 18th May 2023.

3.1.8         On the 9th August 2023, the Complainant received notification in his payslip of a deduction of €6,079.00 as a result of overpay.

4.     Legal Submissions

Circular Title:                   Recovery of Salary, Allowances and Expenses Overpayments made to Staff members/Former Staff Members/Pensioners

Circular Number             07/2018

(See Appendix 5)

4.1.1         Section 3 of Circular 07/2018 sets out the procedure for the recoupment of overpayments. At section 3.4 of this section, it is stated that where the HR Manager confirms that it is appropriate to do so, the first overpayment letter will be issued from People Point to the staff member/former staff member/pensioner who was overpaid, dealing with the following;

(i)                  Value of the overpayment, i.e. the amount owed to the Exchequer

(ii)                Reason for the overpayment

(iii)               Period to which the overpayment relates

(iv)               Proposed repayment plan

(v)                 The procedure for querying the amount of the overpayment

(vi)               Staff obligations

(vii)             The procedure for making and Exceptional/Hardship Arrangements application

4.1.2     The value of the overpayment was never communicated to the Complainant.

Conclusion

1.      It is submitted that by virtue of the above, the Complainant was placed under unnecessary hardship by having the amounts of €1,565.00 and €6,079.00 unilaterally deducted from his wages.  

2.              The Respondent failed in its obligations under the aforementioned Circular and should have notified the Complainant of the amount to be deducted from his wages and if necessary, entered into a repayment plan.

3.              The Complainant seeks redress in the form of reimbursement in the amount of €7,644.00 that was deducted from his wages.

4.              The Complainant requests the Workplace Relations Commission to find in his favour in respect of the complaint set out herein.

5.              The Complainant reserves the right to make further submissions in support of his claim. The arguments advanced by the Complainant will not be limited to the contents of these submissions.

The following closing submissions were received from the claimant on the 30th.Sept.2024 :

Claimant: Rolf Zoschke

Claimants Representative: Ciaran White, McGovern Walsh Solicitors

Respondent: Irish Prison Service

Respondent’s Representative: Kevin Cooke

Respondent’s Witnesses: Aileen Orme, Gerald Percival

1.     The Claim

1.2      The Complainant seeks the investigation and adjudication of his complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and under Circular Number 07/2018 - Recovery of Salary, Allowances and Expenses Overpayments made to Staff members/Former Staff Members/Pensioners.

2.      Background to Employment

2.1.3        The Respondent is a State Body which is responsible for the operations and management of prisons in Ireland.

2.1.4         The Complainant is an Irish Prison Officer who commenced employment with the Irish Prison Service on the 18th February 2019 and currently carries out his duties at Castlerea Prison, Harristown, Castlerea in the County of Roscommon. 

5.     Evidence of Rolf Zoschke

5.1.1        The legal submissions of the Complainant were adduced into evidence.

5.1.2         On the 26th March 2022 the complainant was involved in an altercation at Castlerea Prison where he subsequently received a wrist injury causing him to be absent from work from the 26th March 2022 to the 31st May 2022. The complainant received sick pay during this time.

5.1.3         On the 28th November 2022 the Complainant was taken ill after inhaling smoke fumes during a cell fire at Castlerea Prison. The complainant was on sick leave from the 28th November 2022 until the 7th July 2023 and received sick pay during this time.

5.1.4         On the 6th June 2023, the Complainant was informed by letter from the Human Resources Directorate of the Irish Prison Service that he had been placed on half rate of pay from the 18th January 2023 and that he had exhausted his entitlements to sick leave with pay on the 31st March 2023 and had been removed from the payroll from the 1st April 2023.

5.1.5         On the 28th June 2023, the Complainant received notification in his payslip of a deduction of €1,565.00 as a result of overpay.

5.1.6         On the 19th July 2023, the Complainant was informed by letter from the Human Resources Directorate of the Irish Prison Service that he had been placed on half rate of pay from the 7th March 2023 and that he had exhausted his entitlements to sick leave with pay on the 31st March 2023 and had been removed from the payroll from the 18th May 2023.

5.1.7         On the 9th August 2023, the Complainant received notification in his payslip of a deduction of €6,079.00 as a result of overpay.

6.     Submission of Kevin Cooke

6.1.1        Kevin Cooke is Assistant Principal Officer/Solicitor/Human Resources Directorate/ Employment Law Unit with the Irish Prison Service

6.1.2         Mr Cooke submitted that there was a misinterpretation of the payslips by the Complainant.

7.     Evidence of Aileen Orme

7.1.1        Aileen Orme is Higher Executive Officer in the Attendance Management unit of the Human Resources Directorate with the Irish Prison Service.

7.1.2         Ms Orme gave evidence in relation to the complainants Occupational Injury on Duty and the payments for ordinary sick leave and injury on duty.

8.     Evidence of Gerald Percival

8.1.1        Gerald Percival is Executive Officer in the Pay and Pensions unit of the Human Resources Directorate with the Irish Prison Service.

8.1.2         Mr Percival gave evidence in relation to the calculation of the complainants’ pay slips and stated that the deductions shown on the pay slips of the complainant on the 28th June 2023 and 9th August 2023 was just a calculation.

9.     Submission of The Complainant

9.1.1        It is submitted by the complainant that his pay slip on the 28th June 2023 presented a deduction of €1,565.00 and that this deduction is referred to as an overpayment in the payslip.

9.1.2         It is also submitted by the complainant that his pay slip on the 9th August 2023 presented a deduction of €6,079.00 and this deduction is referred to as an overpayment in the payslip.  

9.1.3         The complainant never received any correspondence from the Respondent in relation to these pay slips explaining why an overpayment and a deduction of these amounts were presented on each respective pay slip.

9.1.4         Section 3 of Circular 07/2018 sets out the procedure for the recoupment of overpayments. At section 3.4 of this section, it is stated that where the HR Manager confirms that it is appropriate to do so, the first overpayment letter will be issued from People Point to the staff member/former staff member/pensioner who was overpaid, dealing with the following;

(viii)           Value of the overpayment, i.e. the amount owed to the Exchequer

(ix)               Reason for the overpayment

(x)                 Period to which the overpayment relates

(xi)               Proposed repayment plan

(xii)             The procedure for querying the amount of the overpayment

(xiii)            Staff obligations

(xiv)            The procedure for making and Exceptional/Hardship Arrangements application

9.1.5         If the Respondent is to follow its own Circular, then any recoupment for overpayment to an employee should be communicated to that employee. The Respondent has presented an overpayment as a deduction in the payslips of the complainant and never communicated this overpayment/deduction to the complainant.

9.1.6         Under 4 (1) of the Payment Wages Act 1991 - An employer shall give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing specifying clearly the gross amount of the wages payable to the employee and the nature and amount of any deduction therefrom and the employer shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates and the statement are treated confidentially by the employer and his agents and by any other employees.

9.1.7         It is respectfully submitted by the Complainant that the nature of the overpayments on the Complainants payslips of the 28th June and 9th August 2023 were never communicated by the Respondent to the Complainant.

10. Conclusion

10.1.1    The Complainant was presented with payslips on the 28th June and 9th August 2023 showing the amounts of €1,565.00 and €6,079.00 deducted from his wages.

10.1.2      The Respondent failed in its obligations under the aforementioned Circular and Section 4 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in that they should have notified the Complainant of the amount and nature of the deductions as presented in his pay slips of the 28th June and 9th August respectively.

10.1.3      The Complainant requests the Workplace Relations Commission to find in his favour in respect of the complaint set out herein.

The claimant did not furnish any further submissions in response to the submissions of the respondent dated Nov. 13 2024.

The respondent’s representative presented the following submission on behalf of the respondent:

1.         This submission is made on behalf of the Irish Prison Service (hereinafter the “IPS”), the Respondent in these proceedings. The Respondent had the benefit of receiving the Complainant’s complaint form only prior to preparing this submission.

2.         The Complainant has submitted four claims seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991; see Tab A. In summary, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has made an unlawful deduction(s) from his pay.

3.         The Respondent strongly opposes this claim. Furthermore, the Respondent will state that the Complainant was at all times paid in accordance with established processes and mechanisms. 

BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

The relevant period to this complaint is circa January to August 2023. The background relates to the application made by the Complainant for an ongoing period of absence to be considered an Occupational Injury on Duty (OID) rather than a period of sickness/illness.

Sick leave

Prior to the relevant period referenced above, the Complainant had engaged in legitimate sick periods. The relevance to this complaint is that the Civil Service sick circular 5 of 2018 (‘Arrangements for Paid Sick Leave’) applied; see Tab C page 1 – 23 (‘Sick Circular’). The Sick Circular specifies the periods for which an employee receives (as relevant) full, half and no pay; see C16.

Absences related to Occupational injury

The Occupational Injury or Disease Policy Document; see C24 to C33, and Circulars 6 of 1997 and 1 of 1982; see C34 and C35 respectively (‘OID Circular’), relate to the application of the OID Circulars and how same interact with the Sick Circular. The OID Circular essentially protects the sick pay day dates, making OID absence dates distinct, so that the period of absence to which full, half and no pay dates apply is extended. See C35, last paragraph “that period will not normally be combined with a period of absence due to ordinary illness so as to adversely affect sick pay entitlement.”

Further, the above is again reflected at no. 5 of C34. The distinct limits for OID related absences are set out at paragraph two of page C28. As stated, prior to submitting an application for an OID, the Sick Circular was applied with respect to the periods of absence; see D1 and F1, respectively.

Please refer to table one, which depicts the interaction and engagement between the Sick Circular and the Occupational Injury on duty circular with respect to sick pay limits. Specifically, the dates when the Complaint was considered to be on full, half and no pay. 

Table One

·       *Note, the dates were ultimately updated to reflect the final pay instruction on 18 July 2023 re half pay w.e.f 07/03/2023.

·       Column one sets out the pay limits. Column two shows the actual sick pay limits as applied. Column three is set out for comparison purposes to show sick pay limit dates had the original OID application been accepted at first instance (i.e. no rejection and appeal). The final column sets out, for comparison, the sick pay limit dates if the OID circular did not apply (i.e. the period was sick pay only).

It is important to distinguish between a deduction and the application of circulars; when an individual is placed on half or no pay in accordance with either circular that is simply the appropriate amount payable at a given point in time. In the actual timeline, the correct circulars are being applied in accordance with the events occurring at each specific point in time and the dates when the pay instructions were issued applying corrections, recoupments and recalculations of pay as necessary. Section E12 sets out an example of the pay slip where rebalancing of pay is shown to occur.

Initial OID Application

Once the Complainant lodged his OID application in December 2022, the IPS approach is that all applications proceed on a presumed valid basis; meaning that before the OID application assessment concludes, the sick pay dates are amended in line with the OID policy.  Specifically, the pay instruction on 21 March 2023, specified the change to half pay from 23 March 2023; see F1.

When the Complainants application was rejected, see D5, based on the information available, the sick pay dates were recalculated in order to realign with the sick pay circular limits. The Pay instruction on 6 June 2023, specified the change to off pay w.e.f 1 April 2023 as OID application refused; see F3. On the same date, the instruction re half pay was amended to begin on w.e.f 18 January 2023 as 92 days had been reached.

This realignment and correction occurs when a pay instruction is issued. When the pay instruction was issued, the system may identify an overpayment for a period e.g. in this case, the period assessed on an OID, which was at that time rejected. This is the reason for the depiction of figures on the pay slip at E12 as well as E13 and E16. However, the key point is that no direct action was taken to recoup funds due to the later appeal, this is also reflected in E12 by the rebalancing in figures.  No deduction applied and any figure change is simply a recalculation and correction.

On 8 June 2023, a new pay instruction confirmed full pay from w.e.f 5 June 2023 due to the Complainants return to work; see F7.

Appeal

As above, the Complaint provided more information and successfully appealed the original OID decision and was granted an OID; see D12.

Following the appeal, a new pay instruction issued on 18 July 2023 confirming that pay dates had been “recalculated”; See F9. Further that the Complaint was off payroll from 18 May 2023 until their return to work. Simultaneously, the half pay dates were “recalculated” and the Complainant was then considered on half pay from w.e.f 7 March 2023. This realignment and correction occurs when a pay instruction is issued; see F11.

When the pay instruction was issued, it became clear that the system assessment of overpayment was now incorrect. No further action was taken.  It is important to take the entire period into account when assessing the figures as when doing so current calculations estimate an overpayment.  

Table two – Salary paid

The Respondent has also prepared table two, which shows the total salary and operational allowance (‘Operational All’) pay dates as they occurred and a comparison with the timeline had the OID application been accepted at first instance, i.e. no appeal. It is clear from the information that no deduction applied.

ENGAGEMENT

On 28 November 2023, the witnesses for the Respondent met with the Complainant and a member of the Prison Officers Association with respect to the matter.

Where the Prison Officers Association are not satisfied with a local issue, they can escalate to seeking to have the matter considered more formally via the association direct to the Local Management and review Committee. No such action was taken by the association or Complainant.  

If necessary, the local branch representative of the Prison Officers Association can seek to have a matter escalated and considered more formally via the National Monitoring and review Committee. No such action was taken by the association or Complainant.  

THE LAW

In this matter, we must also refer to the law, the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended, see relevant extracts below:

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

5 - (5) Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

(II) any overpayment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment, made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and

(ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment.

5 - (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.”

The legislation is important here. Firstly, the processes of communication and payment by the Respondent to the Complainant have been in accordance with Circular 5 of 2018 and Circular 12 of 2023 respectively. The period must be taken in the round and the Complainant has been overpaid.

Furthermore, any differential in pay at any given time is in consequence to the calculations and recalculations of pay due and owing with respect to application for an OID, the initial rejection of that application and the subsequent successful appeal following the provision of additional information. Again, the payments made were the correct payments due and owing at the respective points in time.

WITNESSES

Gerald P Percival - Gerald Percival is Executive Officer in the Pay and Pensions unit of the Human Resources Directorate. Mr Percival will provide evidence with respect to his engagement with the Complainant, the application of pay changes with respect to Injuries on Duty and Sick pay and the mechanisms and processes for making payments and deductions.

Aileen Orme - Aileen Orme is a Higher Executive Officer in the Attendance Management unit of the Human Resources Directorate. Mrs Orme will provide evidence with respect to her engagement with the Complainant, the application and interaction of the Civil Service sick circular and Injury on Duty circular respectively.

The following closing submissions were received from the respondent’s representative on the 6th.Sept. 2024:

1.This closing submission is made on behalf of the Irish Prison Service hereinafter the ‘Respondent’ in these proceedings and should be read in conjunction with the submission of the Respondent filed with the WRC on 30th May 2024.

2.The Respondent strongly opposes this claim. From the evidence at the hearing, it would appear that the entire complaint is based on the Complainants lack of understanding regarding his pay slip.

THE LAW

3.The Respondent highlights the Payment of Wages Act 1991, 5 - (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 himto 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.”(Emphasis added)

The legislation is clear in that in order for a deduction of wages to be claimed, the total amount of any wages that are being claimed must have been “properly payable by him to the employee”.

THE EVIDENCE

4.         The Respondent will state that there is a duty on the Complainant to outline to the Adjudicator why any amount is properly payable. The Complainant has failed to do so.

5.         First, the Complainant states that an unlawful deduction of €1,565.00 was applied to his wages on 28 June 2023; see E13.

a.       First, it is important to note that the Complainant was paid his normal salary on this date and that payment is recorded in the pay slip as €1,421.47. The Complainant is seeking more than double his normal fortnightly salary on the stated date.

b.       In evidence, the Complainant was asked why he believes the amount of €1,565.00, was properly payable as the amount was in excess of the salary he normally receives and notably did receive. The Complainant had no answer but to assert that a figure of that amount was included within a section in his pay slip; further, that he does not understand his pay slip.

c.       The Respondent asserts that the Complainant was paid the amount that was due and payable and no evidence has been provided to evidence that an additional €1,565.00 was payable. It is beyond comprehension as to why the Complainant is unable to explain why the additional amount was due and payable or even outline what the amount was allegedly being paid in respect of.

6.         The Complainant states that an unlawful deduction of €6,079.00 was applied to his wages on 28 June 2023; see E16.

a.       First, it is important to note that the Complainant was paid his normal salary on this date and that payment is recorded in the pay slip as €1,340.20.  The Complainant is seeking more than €7,300.00, which is far higher than his normal fortnightly salary paid on the stated date.

b.       In evidence, the Complainant was asked why he believes the amount of €6,079.00, in excess of the salary he normally receives and did receive, was properly payable. The Complainant had no answer but to assert that the figure was included within a section in his pay slip. He further outlined that he does not understand his pay slip.

c.       The Respondent asserts that the Complainant was paid the amount that was due and payable and no evidence has been provided to evidence that an additional €6,079.00 was payable. It is beyond comprehension as to why the Complainant is unable to explain why such an extraordinary amount was due and payable or even outline what the amount was allegedly being paid in respect of.

7.       Again, with respect to the references to the figures on included in pay slips, it is simply unfathomable for the Complainant to assert such amounts were due and owing simply because a figure(s) is depicted within a calculation on a pay slip.

a.       Gerald Percival confirmed in evidence that he is a subject matter expert working in the pay and pensions section of the Respondent HR department and that the aforementioned figures were computational information used to calculate the net pay figure only and that no deduction was applied. Importantly, he outlined that the key figure on the pay slip was the net pay amount, which highlights that the Complainant was at all times paid the correct amount that was due and payable.

b.       Furthermore, Gerald Percival confirmed that not only had no deduction been applied but that the Complainant had received an overpayment in pay during the period and that no action has been taking to recover same.

8.       In his submissions, the Complainant has referenced Circular 07/2018 Recovery of Salary, Allowances, and Expenses overpayments made to Staff Members/Former Staff Members/Pensioners as being relevant to this matter.

a.       Gerald Percival confirmed in evidence that this Circular was never applied. Gerald Percival did outline that should the Respondent seek to recover an overpayment, then this Circular would be utilised. The Respondent asserts that the fact that a Circular exists and is capable of being applied does not amount to a deduction.

9.       Whereas the Complainant has provided no evidence to state why the monies outlined in the Complaint were properly payable, the Respondent provided evidence from a subject matter expert who confirmed that the Complainant was paid at all times all monies due and payable to him. In circumstances where the Respondent has paid the Complainant all monies that were due and payable and the Respondent has failed to justify or prove why any amount greater than normal salary, which was paid, was properly payable, the Respondent asks the Adjudicator to dismiss the complaints.

The following addendum was received from the respondent’s representative on the 3rd.October 2024.

ADDENDUM CLOSING SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT

10.     This addendum closing submission is made on behalf of the Irish Prison Service hereinafter the ‘Respondent’ in these proceedings and should be read in conjunction with the submission of the Respondent filed with the WRC on 30th May 2024 and the closing submission of the Respondent filed on 5 September 2024.

11.     It is important to highlight at the outset that the summary of evidence provided by the Complainant within the Complainants closing submission is not accepted by the Respondent. In particular, the summary fails to confirm that both Respondent witnesses confirmed in evidence that the Respondent polices related to Sickness and Occupational Injury on Duty were applied correctly and that no deduction had ever been applied to the Complainant. In addition, the summary does not include reference to the Complainants comments that he did not understand his payslip.

12.     The Respondent submits that in order to claim a deduction, the onus is on the Complainant to show that the amount being claimed as a deduction was payable. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was paid the full salary to which he was entitled at all times; no other amount was payable. The Complainant has failed to provide any evidence whether via submission or in evidence to explain why he was entitled to receive the amounts claimed as deductions.

13.     As the Respondent relies on its original submission and closing submission, the Respondent will not repeat submissions here but will additionally comment that the Respondent rejects the Complainant Submission, per 3.1.5 and 3.1.7, that notifications of deductions were included within the body of payslips. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has merely isolated individual computational figures to perceive a deduction that did not occur. Reading the payslips in totality, it is clear that payments were made on the specified dates and, from the evidence provided by the Respondent, that no deduction took place. The Complainant was paid the full amount payable to him; this is clear when considering the historical payslips and the amounts normally received within section E of the original submission pack of the Respondent.

As a simplified example, if an officer is due to receive €4 (amount payable) the computational information could be presented in multiple ways. For example 2 + 2; 1 + 3; 6 – 2; 12 – 8 and 20 - 16 etc. the net result is always 4. It is illogical to isolate a figure from one of the examples listed and state “–16” is a deduction from salary as that would ignore the fact that the calculation was 20-16 to derive the correct amount payable being 4.

14.     With respect to 7.13 to 7.1.5 of the Complainant Submission, regarding correspondence and Circular Number 07/2018 - Recovery of Salary, Allowances and Expenses Overpayments made to Staff members/Former Staff Members/Pensioners, the Respondent position and evidence provided, as per the Respondent closing submission, is that no deductions were ever applied and as a result the Circular was never engaged.

15.     With reference to 7.1.6 of the Complainant Submission, similarly, where no deduction is taken, the Complainant received the full amount payable.

16.     Considering the conclusions at 8 of the Complainant Submission, the Complainant has failed at any level to present a cogent case that the perceived deductions were amounts payable. The Complainant has not presented any evidence to challenge the evidence of the Respondent that the figures set out within the payslips are computational data used to derive the net figure amounting to the pay that was payable; and paid. As a consequence, 8.1.2 is not relevant.

17.     The Respondent strongly opposes this claim. From the evidence at the hearing, it would appear that the entire complaint is based on the Complainants lack of understanding regarding his pay slip. When considering the entire pay slip, and the net amount paid, the officer received the amount due and payable.

The claimant’s representative advised that he would not be responding any further to the above submission on the 12th.Nov. 2024.

In response to a request for clarification from the WRC in relation to the abbreviation on the claimant’s pay slip referencing “Overpay Rec.” the respondent’s representative submitted as follows on the 13th.Nov. 2024

“As below, the term Overpay Rec in payslip 202332 (attached) links to the system screenshot showing its meaning “Overpay Recovery (ded)”, see attached. The purpose of Overpay Recovery (ded) is to cancel/negate a previous “Overpay Recovery (pay)” reference; as depicted in the 202324 payslip (also attached). The screenshot for the “Overpay Recovery (pay)” is also shown.

In essence, the first screenshot and payslip (203224) is identifying, within the system, that an overpayment may have occurred. This could then be actioned.

Again, in essence, the second screenshot and latter payslip (202332) is a cancellation of the above from the system only so there is no need to take action regarding the original amount.

Importantly, no deduction took place and I have included both payslips and screenshots to highlight Net pay amount, provided, is and was the amount that was due and payable.

The amounts of Overpay Rec in both cases, whether positive or negative, are not reflected in the net pay as it was always calculation and administration information only and the other figures in the box are inflated to ensure the employee receives the correct pay due”.  

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and the entirety of the submissions received from the parties. In their submission, the claimant has sought adjudication of his complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and under Circular No. 07/2018 – Recovery of Salary, Allowances and Expenses Overpayments made to staff members / Former Staff Members /Pensioners. My jurisdiction extends only to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and consequently will not be dealing with the alleged breaches of Circular No.7/2018.

The claimant complains that the following unlawful deductions were made from his wages €1,565.00 on the 28th.June 2023 and €6,079.00 on the 9th.August2023.The claimant is relying upon the reference in his pay slip for June 28th.2023 to “ Overpay Rec. -1565.00 and the reference in the pay slip of the 9th.Aug. 2023 to “Overpay Rec.-6,079.00   to support his contention of illegal deductions.

I have considered the respondent’s explanations for these references and on the basis of the voluminous documentary evidence presented on behalf of the respondent and the credible evidence of the witnesses from payroll who advanced that notwithstanding the classification of these as overpayments   ,  that  these deductions were never actually effected.

I accept and acknowledge the claimant’s indication that he did not understand his payslip and further accept that the coding and terminology referenced in the pay slips is confusing , to say the least. However, I am satisfied that the respondent has provided a cogent explanation for their calculations and in this regard found the following paragraph from the submission to be convincing:

“This realignment and correction occurs when a pay instruction is issued. When the pay instruction was issued, the system may identify an overpayment for a period e.g. in this case, the period assessed on an OID, which was at that time rejected. This is the reason for the depiction of figures on the pay slip at E12 as well as E13 and E16. However, the key point is that no direct action was taken to recoup funds due to the later appeal, this is also reflected in E12 by the rebalancing in figures.  No deduction applied and any figure change is simply a recalculation and correction”.

Having regard to the chronology of payments presented in the respondent’s submissions I am satisfied that no evidence has been submitted by the claimant’s side to demonstrate that these disputed amounts were properly payable to the claimant.

In all of the circumstances therefore, I find against the complainant and do not uphold the complaints.

The complaints are not well founded, and I find against the claimant.