Background: 
In June 2020, the worker lodged a complaint concerning her reassignment to the IPMS System in 2005, during which she received an Acting Grade 5 Allowance until April 2008. Although the allowance ceased after the system’s implementation, she continued similar duties and received a Training Allowance. In January 2022, the employer abruptly stopped this allowance, which had been paid for 14 years, and deducted €27,677.92 from her back pay without prior consultation. Despite initiating a grievance, the employer failed to follow procedures, leaving her without resolution. The worker sought reinstatement of the allowance, reimbursement of the deduction, and compensation for the stress caused by the employer's actions, which she perceived as retaliatory.

The Respondent employer maintained that the worker's claim stemmed from a WRC recommendation in October 2021, which reinstated her Acting Grade V allowance from 2008 and resulted in an upgrade to Grade V following a Job Evaluation Scheme. Despite this, the employer deducted her IT training allowance (without consultation), arguing that it was no longer applicable once the Grade V regrading was implemented. The worker had been receiving the training allowance in recognition of duties performed at a higher grade. However, the employer contended that, similar to acting allowances in other roles, the training allowance should cease following the permanent upgrade. After the worker initiated the Grievance Procedure in October 2022, both Stage 1 and 2 of her grievance were not upheld. The employer maintained that the worker has been appropriately compensated since 2008, with relevant back pay issued in May 2022, and asserted that the WRC and Job Evaluation Scheme recommendations were duly implemented.

Finding:  
The Recommendation on the dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969 being that the core issue in this complaint involved the employer's deduction of a training allowance from arrears owed to the worker as held by the WRC. Further, the employer also ceased further payments of this allowance, claiming it was initially provided as compensation for the worker being paid at a lower Grade 3 level, without an ‘acting up’ allowance for the Grade 5 duties she performed. However, the worker was never formally informed of this arrangement. It was held that the employer should have sought clarification or appealed the WRC Adjudicator's recommendation instead of unilaterally making the deduction. Engaging with the worker beforehand would have allowed for necessary clarification. Additionally, the employer failed to clarify which duties were included in the worker's substantive contract, particularly regarding training responsibilities, which appeared to be a significant part of the role. The training duties should have been clearly defined as either permanent or temporary. Despite the employer's claim that the training allowance creates an anomaly, it was previously applied and should continue as long as the worker performs the training duties. The grievance process was mishandled. It was recommended that the deducted allowance be repaid and continue to be paid as long as the training function is required.

Practical Guidance for Employers:
Employers should ensure: