Meath County Council v David Byrne

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PWD1833 ADJ-00011073 CA-00014772-001
Date01 October 2018

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/18/48

DETERMINATION NO.PWD1833

ADJ-00011073 CA-00014772-001

PARTIES:
Meath County Council
and
David Byrne
DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

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

SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00011073 CA-00014772-001

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 11 September 2018 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-00011073 given under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the Act) in a claim by David Byrne that he suffered an unlawful deduction from his wages when Meath County Council (the Respondent) unilaterally reduced his salary with effect from 7 th June 2017. 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 5 th April 2017 to 4 th October 2017. It is not disputed that the payment was made up to the 5 th June 2017 therefore the period in question is 6 th June 2017 until the 4 th October 2017.

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. Following a review of all acting positions in accordance with Circular LG (P) 08/12 the Respondent ceased most acting positions including the Complainants. The decision to cease the Complainants acting position at that time was appealed through the processes culminating in Labour Court Decision AD1432 which held that the Complainant was entitled to hold the post until the seconded employee returned, the vacancy was filled by open competition or the post was suppressed. The Respondent complied with the Labour Court decision and returned the acting allowance to the Complainant. In early 2016 the Complainant was put on notice that the employee he had replaced was returning to work and the acting allowance was again withdrawn on the 13 th of March 2016. The Complainant appealed this decision to the WRC and an Adjudication Officer decision issued in June 2017. The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was well founded and ordered that he be paid the acting allowance noting that the Respondent has the right to either allow the Complainant to remain in the acting post, to fill it by open competition or to supress the post. The Respondent did not appeal that decision and paid the Complainant the acting allowance. On the 27 th July 2017 the Respondent advised the Complainant that the acting post was being suppressed with...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT