Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aine  Wimpenny

Board of Management St. Marys High School Midleton

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00064677-001

10/07/2024

The Complainant has worked as a School Secretary in the Respondent’s school since 26 February 2024. She stated that the Respondent had offered her the role at a rate of pay of EUR 22.41 per hour but that she did not receive this hourly rate of pay. The Respondent disputed that they offered her this pay rate.

The Complainant stated that she was offered the role of School Secretary with the Respondent on 9 February 2024 following a recruitment process. She asserted in her evidence that during a subsequent meeting with the Principal on 22 February 2024, he typed an hourly rate of pay of EUR 22.41 into her contract.

She further stated that when she received her first wage payment from the Department of Education in April 2024, there was a discrepancy between the rate of pay she received and the pay rate that she stated had been agreed with the Principal and written into her contract by him on 22 February 2024.

She is seeking that the difference in the pay rate, that she says was agreed on 22 February 2024 and what she was actually paid, be awarded to her.

The Respondent stated in written submissions both that they were not the Complainant’s employer for the purposes of the Act and that no deductions had been made from her pay.

The Principal of the Respondent also denied that he inserted a rate of pay of EUR 22.41 into her contract at a meeting with the Complainant on 22 February 2024 as the Complainant alleged in her evidence. He stated that he would not have done this as he did not know the hourly rate of pay at the time as this was a matter for the Department of Education. He further asserted that the Respondent paused finalising the terms of the contract until such time as the Department had established the applicable hourly rate for the Complainant in accordance with Circular 0036/22.

Preliminary Matter:

The Law:

Section 1 of the Act in relation to a contract of employment states that it is

(a) a contract of service or of apprenticeship, and

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract) whose status by virtue of the contract is not that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and the person who is liable to pay the wages of the individual in respect of the work or service shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be his employer, whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;

The Act also further states in relation to the definition of an employee and employer for the purposes of the Act that an

"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment

and

"employer", in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment;

Findings:

The Respondent highlighted that it is the Department of Education who pays the Complainant’s wages and supported this assertion with the decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Sullivan v Department of Education where it was found that “the Department is the employer for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act 1991”.

As it was not disputed by the Complainant in this case that it is indeed the Department of Education and not the Respondent who pays her wages, notwithstanding the fact that it was the Respondent who issued her contract of employment, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the wrong Respondent was impleaded.