PW184/2015

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                                         CASE NO.

Andrius Babianskas

                                                                                (appellant)                                PW184/2015

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

First Glass Limited                                            

                                                                               (respondent)

under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr C. Corcoran B.L.

Members:   Mr M. Noone

                   Mr T. Brady

heard this appeal at Dublin on 21st April 2016 and 31st March 2017

Representation:

_______________

Appellant(s) :              Barry O’Mahony B.L instructed by Mr. Richard Grogan, Richard Grogan

                                    & Associates, Solicitors, 16 & 17 College Green, Dublin 2

Respondent(s) :           Mr. Joe Bolger, ESA Consultants, The Novum Building,

                                   Clonshaugh Industrial Estate, Clonshaugh, Dublin 17

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employee appeal of a Rights Commissioner recommendation under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, reference r-144801-pw-14/JW.

Both parties made written (filed) and oral (noted) submissions to the hearing relying upon various legal authorities.

Summary of evidence

The appellant commenced employment as a lorry driver with the respondent company in September 2005.

The appellant’s representative submitted that the appellant’s contract of employment provided that he be paid €34,394 per annum. This sum equates to €661.42 per week. The appellant was paid €554.58. The claim in question covers the period from 13^th November 2013 to 12^th May 2014.

The appellant received this weekly wage of €554.58 throughout his employment (plus a weekly subsistence rate of €114.27).

The respondent submitted a payslip dated 16^th September 2005 showing a wage of €491.41 and submitted that this shows that the appellant received an increase in pay during his employment. It was noted by the Tribunal that this payslip did not show hours worked.

The appellant’s representative submitted that a non-payment of wages (in this case part of the wages) is a deduction. The appellant seeks an amount of €2,777.84 being the underpayment of €106.84 per week for 26 weeks.

The respondent company submitted that no contract existed between the parties as the appellant did not accept the original contract and was never signed by him.

Determination

Each side produced documentation to substantiate their claim eg. P60s and payslips.

On balance after hearing the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was a loss on the part of the employee having perused the P60.

In the circumstances we are satisfied the loss was a deduction and the Tribunal awards €2,777.84 under the Payment of Wages Act.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)