The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Charles Stefanazzi, a clerical officer in the National Parks and Wildlife Service, over his claim that he should have been paid at a higher rate for work he said he performed as a geographic information system (GIS) technician.
Mr Justice MacGrath delivered the judgment on 9 October 2019. The appeal was on a point of law under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and concerned a Labour Court determination issued on 20 December 2016. The High Court’s role was limited: it could intervene if the Labour Court made an error of law or an unsupported finding of fact.
The Labour Court had ruled that no procedure was followed to assign Mr Stefanazzi a higher grade or an acting-up or higher-duty allowance, and that the pay he received was not less than the wages properly payable to him. The High Court found it was open to the Labour Court to decide the case as a preliminary issue. The parties had accepted that approach at the hearing and made submissions about the procedures for assigning pay and grades.
Mr Stefanazzi said he had performed GIS technician duties from 2009 and relied on his qualifications, training, responsibilities and a 2013 internal review that described a clerical officer in the GIS unit carrying out technician duties without corresponding pay. The Department disputed that account. It said he remained a clerical officer who assisted technical staff, and that promotion or an allowance required a process and, where applicable, approval from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
The High Court said the Labour Court gave little explanation for why its preliminary issue could determine the claim and did not discuss in detail what “properly payable” meant under the Act. But, given the parties’ acceptance of the procedure, the judge concluded it would be inappropriate to overturn the determination on that basis. He also found there was material before the Labour Court to support its conclusion, while noting that the High Court might not have reached the same view of the facts.
The judge said he had considerable sympathy with Mr Stefanazzi’s argument about the duties he performed, which he said tended to support and corroborate the claim that they were GIS technician duties. However, the court did not decide that he was entitled to technician pay. It held that he had not discharged the burden of proof on the appeal and dismissed it.