Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David Clarke

Danu Homecare Ltd

Representatives

 Hamilton Turner Solicitors

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-00068046-001

11/12/2024

This matter was scheduled to be heard at 12 o’clock on Wednesday 2nd April 2025. At the time the hearing was due to begin, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. The Adjudication Officer checked the address that the hearing notification letter was sent to and the Complainant gave sworn evidence that this address is where the administrative office is located and where he attends for business related activity.

The Complainant works for the Respondent as a home care assistant and submitted this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 on 11th December 2024. The Complainant gave evidence under oath at the hearing and also provided a booklet of supporting documentation.

The Complainant’s representative made an opening submission in relation to this matter and a number of related cases. He stated that there are seven Complainants bringing complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Each of the Complainants are or were employees of the Respondent. Each Complainant had been an employee of Ann’s Homecare Ireland Ltd until October 2023 when, under European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003, their employment transferred to the Respondent. The Complainants were employed to work seven 12 hour shifts, which equated to eighty four hours per fortnight. In November 2023, one month after the transfer of the Complainant’s employment to the Respondent, a letter was sent to each Complainant to say that their working time would change.

As homecare assistants, the Complainants made several home visits per day and used their own vehicle to travel between each property. The change that occurred is related to the time spent between each home visit. The Complainants had been receiving a flat rate for eighty four hours per fortnight, but this changed to no longer being paid for travel time between home visits. The Complainants were promised a minimum of sixty hours per fortnight. It was submitted that they still worked seven 12 hour shifts, but were no longer being paid for time between calls. They did not agree to this change and sought support through their union. A grievance was raised internally and a conciliation process entered into, but without any satisfactory resolution.

The Complainant’s representative applied to extend the cognisable period on behalf of each Complainant. It was requested that the Complainant could recover loss for the period from when the change was implemented in November 2023 until the complaint form was lodged in December 2024. The basis of this application was that they had engaged in good faith in the conciliation process and should not be penalised for the fact that there was no satisfactory resolution.

The Complainant is seeking payment of the difference between the original 84 hours per fortnight and the reduced 60 hours per fortnight which the Complainant now receives.

Complainant’s evidence

The Complainant began working for Ann’s Homecare Ireland Ltd as a home care assistant on 19th January 2022 and ceased work with the Respondent on 4th November 2024. During his time in employment, he worked shifts where he had to be available from 8am to 9pm. He worked 7 days per fortnight, with a pattern of 4 days in the first week and 3 days in the second week. Regardless of any time spent travelling in between calls or if there were any cancellations, he was paid in full for 84 hours per fortnight until November 2023.

The Complainant’s employment had transferred to the Respondent in October 2023 and shortly after, on 30th November 2023, he received a letter which changed his working conditions. He said that he was no longer paid for time spent between calls to service users or travelling to service users. He did not agree to these changes and raised a grievance as a result but got no response to this.

He said that an average of €511.36 was deducted from his wages as a result of this change. It was roughly €250 - €300 over the two weeks. He provided a payslip dated 24th June 2022 showing a total number of 85 hours with a net payment of €1,193.05. A further payslip dated 4th January 2024 showing total hours of 45.5 hours with a net payment of €911.92. The Complainant also provided a copy of his contract of employment with a commencement date of 19th January 2022.

The Complainant gave evidence that the address provided for the Respondent is the usual place of business. It is also the address contained in his contract of employment.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and no submissions or written communication of any kind was received from the Respondent in advance of the hearing date.

At the time the hearing was due to commence, I enquired of the Complainant if the address provided was for an active administrative office and he confirmed that it was. I confirmed that the hearing notification letter was issued by post to the Respondent’s usual place of business on 11th February 2025.

Following the hearing, I was notified by a case officer that a phone call had been received from the Respondent who wished for a representative to come on record, however no application was received at that time requesting any postponement or re-listing of this and/or related cases. A representative subsequently did come on record. On 28th August 2025, the Respondent’s representative asked for the cases to be relisted due to an error in communication. The Complainant did not consent to the matter being relisted and, in the circumstances, given the reasons advanced and the passage of time, the Adjudication Officer did not agree to re-list this case. However, considering this correspondence, it is evident that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing date and arrangements but did not attend.

Application for an extension of Time

The Complainant lodged this complaint on the 11th December 2024. The Complainant’s representative made an application to extend the time for bringing the complaint in relation to the deduction of wages which occurred outside the six month period preceding the lodging of the complaint.

Following the judgement of Hogan J in Health Service Executive v. John McDermott [2014] IEHC 331 where he held that the Labour Court was correct in deciding that each and every alleged deduction under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was a new contravention, I am satisfied that I can examine any alleged contravention of that Act that occurred within the cognisable period. The cognisable period is the six month period preceding the receipt of a complaint form by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission. In this case, the complaint form was submitted on 11th December 2024 and so I can consider any alleged contravention that occurred from 12th June 2024 up to the 11th December 2024.

The Complainant’s application is that I also inquire into any alleged deductions that were made between 30th November 2023 and 11th June 2024. In other words, it is an application to extend the time frame for consideration of the complaint.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 states:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

The Complainant is effectively making an application to apply section 41(8) of that Act. That section states:

An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The application for extending time is made on the basis that the Complainant engaged in good faith in a conciliation procedure and awaited its outcome prior to presenting his complaint within the usual six month time frame. He requests an extension of time in relation to the deduction of wages which occurred outside the six month period preceding the lodging of this complaint.

As noted above, section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, allows an extension of time if reasonable cause for the delay in lodging the claim is shown. The timeframe may be extended by up to a further six months.

For an extension of time to be granted, the Complainant must provide an explanation for the delay and offer a justifiable excuse for the delay. The Complainant must establish a causal connection between the reason for the delay and the failure to present the complaint in time. Finally, it must be shown that the complaint would have been presented in time if not for the factors relied upon as reasonable cause. It is the actual delay that must be explained and justified.

The explanation and justification for the delay in this case is that the Complainant had engaged in a conciliation process and awaited the outcome of that prior to submitting the complaint. The Labour Court has considered this issue on multiple occasions, albeit in a different type of case.

In Health Service Executive - And -Ms Rebecca Forde EDA2234, the Respondent made a submission to the effect that the Court has made it clear repeatedly that utilising a grievance procedure does not provide reasonable cause for the submission of a late claim. It highlighted two relevant cases namely:

Business Mobile Security Ltd. t/a Seneca Limited v. John McEvoy EDA 1621, in which the Court dealt with this matter at length. [and in]

Brothers of Charity Services Galway v Kieran O’ Toole EDA 177, the Court determined that utilising internal procedures could not be accepted as preventing the initiation of a complaint within the statutory limits.

It was stated that “The Court has repeatedly referred with approval to the cases quoted.”

The Court stated the below in its determination of the issue:

As the Respondent noted, the Court has dealt extensively in the ‘McEvoy’ and the ‘Brothers of Charity’ cases, see case references above, with the argument that a worker was delayed in lodging a complaint due to the fact of them pursuing internal processes. It is not necessary to reiterate at length here the Court’s view other than noting that, ordinarily, of itself and unless there are circumstances that could warrant an exception, the utilisation of an internal process does not justify delay in bringing proceedings.

The above case was related to complaints under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015, rather than the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and addresses an internal grievance process rather than a conciliation process. However, the principle applied is sound and, in my view, is equally applicable to a conciliation process as to an internal process. Following the reasoning of the Labour Court that the utilisation of a grievance procedure does not provide reasonable cause, I am not satisfied that reasonable cause exists in this case to consider any alleged deduction that occurred prior to the cognisable period.

I will therefore consider whether there has been an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages between 12th June 2024 and 11th December 2024.

Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant’s complaint is made under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Section 5 of that Act provides as follows:

“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.”

And

“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.”

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was considered in Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55. In that case, MacGrath J. re-affirmed the proposition that the first matter to be determined is what wages are properly payable under the contract of employment. If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 has been made from the wages properly payable, it is then necessary to consider whether that deduction was lawful. MacGrath J. stated at paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgement:

“Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Central to the court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation.”

MacGrath J. went on to consider the case of Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v. Lacey [2007] 1 IR 478 which contemplated the question of remuneration properly payable to an employee before considering the question of a deduction or whether a deduction was unlawful. Referring to that case he stated:

“This decision supports the proposition that the first matter which should be addressed by the Labour Court is to determine what wages are properly payable under the contract.”

In the first instance therefore, I must be satisfied what wages are properly payable to the Complainant during the cognisable period. 

The Complainant says that the properly payable wages are comprised of 84 hours per fortnight. He gave evidence that these were the hours that he worked before a change was implemented.

In a case such as this, the burden of proof is initially on a Complainant to identify what wages are properly payable and what deduction has been made therefrom.

I have had regard to the contract of employment provided by the Complainant. In particular, clauses 4.1, 9 and Schedule 1, the relevant parts of which are set out below:

“4.1 Except and to such extent as may be otherwise mutually agreed or specified in Schedule 1 of this Agreement. Your normal working hours will be up to 48 hours per week Monday to Sunday. The company reserves the right to determine the hours/days you work or alternatively, to change these working hours. You will receive as much notice as is reasonably possible prior to any change.”

“9. Layoff and / or short time

Ann’s Home Care Ire Limited reserves the right to lay you off from work or reduce your working hours, where, through circumstances beyond its control, it is unable to maintain you in employment. You will receive as much notice as is reasonably possible prior to such lay-off or short time. You will not be paid during the lay-off period. You will only be paid in respect of hours actually worked during period of short time.”

“Schedule 1:

Status (Full Time, Part Time, Fixed Term): Casual – on an “as and when required” basis

Normal Working Hours: As and when required”

The Complainant also provided the letter dated 30th November 2023 from the Director of Operations which notified the Carer Team of the change. The letter states:

I regret to inform you that due to a change in our contract with the HSE, we are no longer being provided with funding for our 12 hour runs and our service needs to be adapted to fit within the parameters of the Authorisation Scheme operated by the HSE for the provision of Home Care.

After careful consideration, and in an effort to avoid redundancies and protect our Carer Team, we have no option except to transition all of our Carers in this area to a new contract. This contract will guarantee a minimum of 60 hours per fortnight. This is a minimum guarantee and allows you to work additional hours that may become available in addition to this. We are continuing to work with the HSE to continue to grow our hours in the area. There will also be a new higher 30-minute rate where two half-hour calls take place back-to-back….

This supports the Complainant’s evidence that there was a change in the manner in which hours were allocated and paid for. However, this letter was issued to a group of people and does not establish that the Complainant had a right to a guaranteed payment of eighty four hours per fortnight.

The contract provided by the Complainant in this case does not guarantee any minimum amount of hours. It specifically states that “Your normal working hours will be up to [emphasis added] 48 hours per week Monday to Sunday.” This does not impose an obligation on the Respondent to pay the Complainant for 84 hours per fortnight. Further, in Schedule 1 of this contract, the Complainant’s status is described as “casual” and normal working hours are on an “as and when required” basis. This, again, does not guarantee the Complainant 84 hours per fortnight.

In my view, the Complainant’s contract can not be relied upon to ground a claim that eighty four hours per fortnight are or were properly payable to the Complainant at the relevant time.

As this is a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, it is for the Complainant to show that the wages are properly payable.  Considering the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has shown that he was entitled to wages for a guaranteed eighty four hours per fortnight. In other words, I am not satisfied based on the information provided that wages for those hours are properly payable.

As I am not satisfied that the wages claimed are properly payable, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I do not find that this complaint is well founded

Properly payable – payment of wages