South Dublin County Council (Represented by Local Government Management Agency) v Anthony Madden (Represented by Ireland Human Resources)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 0701
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00026544 CA-00032455-001 DETERMINATION NO. PWD2251 SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

South Dublin County Council (Represented by Local Government Management Agency)

and

Anthony Madden (Represented by Ireland Human Resources)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/22/185

ADJ-00026544 CA-00032455-001

DETERMINATION NO. PWD2251

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

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00026544 CA-00032455-001.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. Both parties appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Employer appealed the decision on 5 August 2022. The Employee appealed the decision on the 8 August 2022. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2 December 2022. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

3 This is an appeal on behalf of South Dublin County Council (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00026544, dated 27 June 2022) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the Act’). The Respondent's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 5 August 2022. A cross-appeal was received from Mr Anthony Madden (‘the Complainant’) on 7 August 2022. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 2 December 2022.

The Factual Matrix

4 There is no material dispute between the Parties in relation to the facts giving rise to the within appeal and they can be summarised as follows. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Depot Assistant from January 1997 until his retirement on 11 September 2011. Between 1997 and 2008, the Complainant worked an extensive amount of overtime in addition to his normal duties and was paid accordingly for all overtime hours worked.

5 The Complainant received his pension in the normal way following his retirement in 2011. However, in 2017 he instructed a solicitor to initiate an appeal on his behalf under the Superannuation Internal Dispute Resolution process to determine whether the overtime he had worked was reckonable for the purpose of superannuation benefits. The appeal did not succeed as the overtime worked by the Complainant was not deemed to meet the requirements of the relevant Circular (No 12/91). In 2019, the Complainant unsuccessfully escalated the matter to the Pensions Ombudsman. Eventually – on 21 November 2019 – the Complainant initiated a claim under the Act before the Workplace Relations Commission. That claim was upheld by the Adjudication...