FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : CALLINAN COACHES LTD (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - JOHN O' SULLIVAN (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00000929. CA-00001651-001.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00000929, CA-00001651-001 made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 4 April 2017 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Mr John O’Sullivan against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00000929, CA-00001651-001under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991(the Act) against his former employer, Callinan Coaches Ltd. In this Determination the parties are referred to as they were at first instance, hence Mr O’Sullivan is referred to as ‘the Complainant’ and Callinan Coaches Ltd is referred to as ‘the Respondent’.
The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant’s complaint was well founded, however he noted that the Complainant did not demur in respect of the Respondent’s assertion that an overpayment had been made to him and accordingly, decided not to make an award of compensation to him.
The Complainant appealed the Adjudication Officer Decision to this Court on 23rd December 2016. The appeal came before the Court on 4th April 2017.
Background
The Complainant commenced his employment as a Driver with the Respondent, a luxury coach hire service provider, on 1st October 2005. With effect from 14th July 2015 the Complainant was dismissed. At the time of the termination of his employment, the Complainant’s weekly earnings were €594.03 gross per week.
The Claim
The Complainant claimed that the Respondent was in breach of the Act as he was dismissed without notice and he did not receive payment for six days outstanding annual leave on the cesser of his employment.
Summary of the Complainant’s Arguments
The Complainant’s final payslip indicated that he was paid four week’s pay in lieu of notice and was paid a refund of PAYE and USC of €959.05. However, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent deducted the sum of €2966.39 from his final pay. Therefore the sum of €1007.39 was paid to him in his final payment.
The Complainant contended that the Respondent had no contractual or statutory right to make the deductions which he held were in contravention of the Act.
Summary of the Respondent’s Arguments
The Respondent disputed the claim and submitted that all payments due and owing to him were paid and deductions made were in accordance with Section 5(5) of the Act.
The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s final payslip indicated that four week’s pay was paid in lieu of notice and payment was made in respect of six outstanding annual leave days.
Conclusion of the Court
Having examined the complaint made by the Complainant under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and having found for the Complainant under that Act, the Court does not made a determination in respect of that aspect of his claim under the 1991 Act.
The Court notes that payment for six days annual leave was made and consequently there is no outstanding payment due to the Complainant.
Determination
The Court determines that the Complainant’s appeal under the 1991 Act fails for the reasons set out above. In that regard the Adjudication Officer’s Decision is varied.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8 May 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.