Daniel Murphy, an experienced Leaving Cert supervisor, reports that his payment was improperly reduced by over €1,600 due to a lengthy disagreement about travel allowances. He alleges that officials presumed he would use back roads “cross country” as the shortest option to reach the assigned school, which he believes is impracticable.
Speaking to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Murphy expressed that ensuring exams commence punctually is his main priority. He voiced concerns that tailing slow agricultural traffic, if he took the route recommended by the State Examinations Commission (SEC), might result in delays.
Murphy has lodged a grievance under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 against the SEC, claiming that each year he was supervising the Leaving Cert at a school in Kells, Co Meath, in 2021, 2022, and the previous year, his mileage remuneration was short by a substantial amount.
Despite an official stating that Murphy’s mileage claims were “excessive” and that all his due salaries had been paid, Murphy, a resident of Monaghan with approximately three decades of supervisory experience, insists that the situation occurred after he began serving temporarily as a supervisor for the Leaving Cert exams at Kells Community School in 2021.
He argued that numerous routes could lead from Monaghan to Kells, yet most entail travelling along poorly maintained minor roads. Murphy proposed that the most sensible route is along the N2, however, his submitted mileage based on this path resulted in a unilateral reduction of his payment starting in 2021.
According to Murphy, in 2021 the SEC compensated him for 629km fewer than he actually drove, which equates to a shortfall of €522 based on a rate of €0.83 per kilometre. He claimed to be paid €550 less in 2022 and short by €574.20 in the previous year.
He criticized the SEC’s approach of relying on Google Maps to identify the shortest distance between two Eircodes as the supposedly required route. Murphy stated that practical reasons, including arriving on time to commence exams, influenced his travelling decisions. He maintained that while the suggested path might technically be shorter, it isn’t a route a prudent person would select.
The statement from him stated his 2021 travel claims remained unresolved, blaming the SEC for not informing him about the rejection of his initial grievance. He illustrated his interaction with the officials as a repetitive process referred to higher authorities.
However, Yvonne Shanley, the temporary senior officer at the SEC, countered the claim stating that the travel expenses do not accord with the description of salaries in the Payment of Wages Act, thus the WRC lacked the authority to examine alleged salary reductions from as early as 2021 or 2022.
“We are obligated to enact the rules. Whilst people have the right to independently opt to take a longer route, we can only disburse what the Department of Finance authorises,” stated Ms Shanley.
To this, Mr Murphy specified, “I have no interest in travelling on minor and congested lanes where I might encounter farming traffic in June, leading to significant delays.”
Christina Ryan, an adjudicator, understood that she must evaluate if the allegations were invalidated by the statute of limitations, along with contending arguments pertaining to the definition of wages under the act, prior to considering the legitimacy of the complaint. She concluded the proceedings, ensuring that she would contact involved parties in the future with her verdict.