PWD1719

This is Mr Hayes’s (“the Complainant”) appeal from that part of the decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00004245, dated 24 April 2017) that dealt with his claims under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”). The Complainant had also referred a number of complaints under the Organisation of Working Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) to the Workplace Relations Commission that were determined by the Adjudication in the same set of proceedings. However, the Complainant did not appeal the Adjudication Officer’s decisions under the 1997 Act to the Court.

The Complainant worked for State Wide Towing And Recovery Limited (“the Respondent”) from 23 February 2015 until 15 February 2016. He voluntarily resigned his employment by letter dated 29 January 2016. His complaint is that the Respondent wrongfully deducted the sum of €1,050.00 from his final pay cheque. The Respondent submits that the deduction in question relates to a recoupment of 75% of the cost of specialised training it had paid for at the commencement of the Complainant’s period of employment and which it was contractually entitled to be reimbursed for.

The Court heard evidence from the Complainant and from Mr Mark Hoare, M.D. of the Respondent company. Mr Hoare’s evidence was that he had previously employed the Complainant on a number of occasions in the past. He told the Court that he personally inducted the Complainant into the role he was hired for (working in the Port Tunnel) in February 2015. During that induction he recalls specifically telling the Complainant that the Company pays upfront for specialised training for the Port Tunnel work and that, in order to incentivise employees receiving such training to stay with the company and not leave to work for a competitor, they would be required to repay some or all of the cost of the training if they were to leave the Respondent’s employment. The arrangement was that the amount of the repayment would be reduced by 25% for each year of service given by the employee. The Complainant told the Court that he had no recollection of this conversation ever having taken place.

The representative for the Respondent, Ms Cashe from Peninsula, also drew the Court’s attention to various provisions of the employment contract signed by the Complainant that make reference to the Employee Handbook. She also directed the Court to the Training Agreement provisions in the Handbook itself that specify the details of the reimbursement arrangements that apply to training paid for by the Respondent. The Complainant submitted that he had never seen this Handbook and had never been given a copy of it. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was given a copy of the Employee Handbook although it accepted that it did not have a written acknowledgement of receipt signed by the Complainant.

Discussion and Decision

Having regard to the evidenced adduced before it, the Court finds that the Respondent did provide specialised training to the Complainant for which it paid up front and the amount deducted from the Complainant’s final wages equates to 75% of the total amount paid by the Respondent for the training in question.

The Court finds that although that there is no evidence that the Complainant received a copy of the Employee Handbook he was verbally put on notice by Mr Hoare in relation to the terms of the Respondent’s training agreement.

Section 5(2)(b) of the Act provides:

• “(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—
  • (a) ….
    (b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,
    unless—
    (i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and
    (ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and
    (iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—
    • (I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof”.