Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniel  Murphy

State Examinations Commission

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Yvonne Shanley State Examinations Commission

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-00060108-001

19/11/2023

The Complainant referred his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 19th November 2023 wherein he claimed to be owed travel/mileage expenses in excess of €1,500 for the periods June 2021, June 2022 and June 2023.  

The Respondent disputed the complaint submitting that the Complainant’s complaint related to expenses not wages, that the Complainant was paid all monies due and owing to him according to the Department of Finance regulations governing travel expenses and that any complaint in relation to travel expenses from June 2021 and June 2022 was out of time.

The Complainant stated that in 2023 he was contracted by the Respondent to supervise the leaving certificate examinations in St. Ciaran’s Community School, Kells, Co. Meath during the month of June 2023. When he was paid in his wages he did not receive payment for 631 kilometres of travel/mileage expense claimed. According to the Complainant he travelled to work at St. Ciaran’s Community School, Kells, Co. Meath using the main roads that are normally used for the journey from his home in Monaghan to Kells. He stated that the roads used by him were more efficient time wise but the Respondent insisted on paying him using an alternate route availing of minor roads which are more dangerous and slow to travel on. The Complainant appealed the Respondent’s decision and communicated with them on many occasions only to find that his complaint was not being taken seriously and that he was being ignored. The Complainant supervised in the same school in 2021 and 2022 and faced the same problem regarding travel/mileage expenses as he did in 2023. In 2021 and 2022 he appealed to the Respondent but was met with a similar lack of willingness to engage with him. He claimed to be owed a total in excess of €1,500 for the periods June 2021, June 2022 and June 2023.    

The Complainant stated in evidence that he took up the temporary work for the leaving certificate exams in Kells in 2021 but that the problem with Kells is that it is cross-country from Monaghan. He stated that there are about seven or eight different routes between Monaghan and Kells but that they are along minor roads in bad repair and that any rational person would make the journey on a major road as he had done but that when he claimed for this route starting in 2021 his travel/mileage expense claims were unilaterally reduced.

He stated that his mileage expenses from 2021 and 2022 were still outstanding because the Respondent never informed him that it was rejecting his internal complaint on the matter.

In response to the Respondent’s submissions the Complainant confirmed that he has no complaint about the payment of his wages or the subsistence allowance for meals. His only complaint was with regards to the reduction of the mileage he claimed. He stated that his travel expenses were incurred solely for the purpose of carrying out employment with the Respondent and that the expenses incurred were not paid to him.

The Respondent’s representative submitted that the Complainant’s mileage/travel expenses claim did not fall under the definition of wages in the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and that the WRC did not have jurisdiction to consider a claim for alleged deduction of wages for expenses incurred in June 2021 and June 2022.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s issue did not relate to wages but related to the amount of travel expenses he was paid. Through his complaint he was seeking payment for an additional 631 Kilometres. Part of the Respondent’s payment process and internal control is to check the travel and subsistence associated with contract staff claims.

According to the Respondent, travelling expenses and subsistence allowances paid to examinations contract staff are paid in accordance with the Department of Finance regulations which apply to the civil service. All official travel should be by the shortest practicable routes and by the cheapest practicable mode of conveyance.  The Respondent’s website also contains information for contract staff which is updated each year.  The information includes the rates of fees, details relating to travel and subsistence and that payment will be made in accordance with the regulations that apply to the public service which was uploaded on the Respondent’s website in February 2023. 

In April 2023 the Complainant would have received his letter of appointment as Superintendent on foot of accepting the Respondent’s offer of re-appointment. Subsequently he received his assignment letter assigning him to St Ciaran’s Community School, Kells, Co. Meath.

The Complainant was required to complete a Superintendents Validation Form to confirm that he had engaged with the training presentation and read the general instructions for Superintendents 2023 which included intra alia that “all travelling duties should be planned so as to reduce the total amount of travel to the minimum consistent with efficiency. All official travel should be by the shortest practicable routes and by the cheapest practicable mode of conveyance.”

The Complainant’s claim was reduced as the route he used was not the shortest most practicable route for any of the journeys he took.

According to the Respondent the Complainant would have been aware of the requirement to travel by the shortest practicable route having had his travel claims reduced in both 2021 and 2022 and that it was up to the Complainant to choose to travel by a particular route but payment could only be made in accordance with the relevant regulations. 

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

Relevant Law:

Payment of Wages Act 1991

In considering whether the Complainant’s wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction as alleged, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Under the 1991 Act “wages” are defined as:

"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

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.”

Section 5 of the 1991 Act deals with the regulation of certain deductions made by employers.

Section 5(6)(b) of the 1991 Act states that failure to pay amounts due on the occasion when due “…shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

Section 6 of the 1991 Act outlines the directions which an adjudication officer can make, where a complaint is wholly or partly well founded.

The Complainant complaint related to the non-payment of travel/mileage expenses. Pursuant to the 1991 Act expenses are not regarded as wages. Therefore, the complaint is not well founded.

I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

Travel Expense