PWD1640

Summary of the Respondent’s position

The Respondent contended that a collective agreement had been concluded between the Respondent and the Trade Union representing Standby Constables on 19^thAugust 2015. The Respondent contended that the Claimant’s contract of employment specified that terms and conditions of employment for Standby Constables would be in accordance with agreements concluded from time to time between the Trade Union recognised by the Respondent for that purpose and the Respondent. The Respondent advised the court that a previous agreement had been concluded in 2012 between it and the relevant Trade Union providing arrangements for the payment of Standby Constables when they worked in non-shift locations. The 2012 agreement had not, as a result of error, been implemented by the Respondent and that erroneous non-implementation was addressed by agreement with the relevant Trade Union on 19^thAugust 2015. That agreement provided for the implementation of the 2012 agreed arrangements with effect from May 2015.

The Respondent contended that the Claimant had been notified by the Respondent at a direct meeting on 19^thAugust 2015 of the content of the collective agreement it had concluded that day with the Trade Union recognised for the purpose of making such agreements. The Respondent submitted to the Court that the Claimant had been paid in accordance with the agreement of 19^thAugust 2015 with effect from May 2015 as provided for in that agreement. The Respondent asserted that the determination of the Claimant’s terms and conditions of employment by collective agreement between the Respondent and the recognised Trade Union was specified in the Claimant’s contract of employment and consequently no unlawful deduction from wages had taken place.

Summary of the Claimant’s Position

The Claimant contended that the Respondent had made deductions from his wages with effect from May 2015. The Claimant accepted that his terms and conditions of employment were set in accordance with the terms of agreements made between the Respondent and the relevant Trade Union from time to time and that his contract of employment so specified. The Claimant contended that no agreement existed between the Respondent and the relevant Trade Union dated 19^thAugust 2015 and also asserted that the Respondent did not convey to him on 19^thAugust 2015 the content of an agreement concluded with the relevant Trade Union on that day.

The Claimant contended that unlawful deductions from his wages of €2,820.48 were made by the Respondent in the period from May 2015 to his making of a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 25^thNovember 2015.

Discussion and conclusions.

It is common case that the Respondent met with the relevant Trade union on 19^thAugust 2015 and that a meeting took place between the Respondent and the Claimant immediately upon the conclusion of that meeting. The Court has been provided with a document setting out the detail of the alleged agreement concluded between the Respondent and the relevant Trade Union on that date. The Respondent has been notified of no complaint from the relevant Trade Union in consequence of the implementation of the alleged agreement of 19^thAugust 2015. The Court, on the balance of probabilities, accepts that the Respondent concluded a collective agreement with the relevant Trade Union on 19^thAugust 2015 and that the detail of that agreement including implications for the pay arrangement for Standby Constables working on non-shift sites were conveyed to the Claimant on 19^thAugust 2015. Those arrangements were to have effect from May 2015.

It is common case that the Respondent’s payroll unit adopted a method of implementation of the agreed arrangements which resulted in a payslip being generated for the Claimant which was inaccurate with regard to pay rate when working non-shift sites and hours of work in pay periods when the Claimant worked on a non-shift site. No complaint is before the Court as regards inaccuracies in the Claimant’s payslip.

The Court has been provided with detail of the wages paid to the Claimant from May 2015 to 25^thNovember 2015. The Court is satisfied that the Claimant was paid in accordance with the collective agreement made on 19^thAugust 2015 between the Respondent and the relevant Trade union.

The Act at section 5 provides in relevant part as follows

• 5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—
  • (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

    (b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

    (c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

Determination

The Court finds that the appeal is made out.

The Court finds that no unlawful deduction from the Claimant’s wages has taken place and for the reasons stated above the decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
1 November 2016______________________
MNChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.