Meath County Council (Represented by — Eamonn Hunt (LGMA) v David Byrne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 January 2020
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2020] 1 JIEC 1506
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PWD203 ADJ-00018968 CA-00024442-001
• Date: 2020
• Year: 2020
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Meath Co Council (Represented by — Eamonn Hunt (LGMA)

and

David Byrne

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/19/61

DETERMINATION NO.PWD203

ADJ-00018968 CA-00024442-001

Labour Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

SUBJECT:

1 1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s)ADJ-00018968 CA-00024442-001

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 8 January 2020 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:

3 This is an appeal by David Byrne (the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer's Decision ADJ-00018968 given under the Payment of Wages Act 1991(the Act) in a claim that he suffered an unlawful deduction from his wages when Meath County Council (the Respondent) unilaterally reduced his salary The Adjudication Officer declared the complaint not well founded.

4 The cognisable period in relation to this claim for the purpose of the Act is 23 ^rd June 2018 to 22 ^nd December 2018.

Background

5 The Complainant commenced employment with the Council in July 2000 as a temporary Assistant Chemist. He was subsequently made permanent in 2003 in the position of Executive Environmental Officer. In late 2004 the Complainant was successful in a competition for the position of acting Senior Executive Scientist and was appointed to that position in 2005. The position was to fill a vacancy that arose from the secondment of an official to another County Council. This issue of payment of this particular acting allowance had been the subject of previous Labour Court Decisions. The issue before the Court on this occasion is whether the acting up allowance was properly payable during the cognisable period arising from this particular claim.

Complainant's case

6 It is the Complainant's case that he has continued to do the same duties at all time and therefore he should continue to receive the acting up allowance. It was his submission that the return of Senior Executive's in other sections could not impact his allowance as he continued to carry out the same duties. The Complainant did not dispute that previous decisions of the Labour Court had stated that the allowance could cease for a number of reasons one being if the post was suppressed. The...