ADJ-00008410

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008410

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/08/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complaint states that before leaving his job, he was out on sick leave. He claims that the Respondent Company incorrectly added a BIK of illness benefit of €193 to his pay but he was not in receipt of illness benefit from the Department of Social Protection as he did not meet the criteria. This increased his tax liability for that week. The Claimant brought this to the attention of 3 people in the Company on 24/04/2017; the store’s payroll clerk, the store’s deputy manager and the Head Office payroll clerk. He handed in his notice to the Company and would have been due to receive his outstanding holiday hours in his final payslip. He only received his final week’s pay and the BIK was not reversed. The following week, he received no payslip. The week after he received a zero hour payslip. He contacted the store’s payroll clerk on 13/05/17 and enquired as to when his pay would be rectified and enquired as to when he would receive his P45. The Complainant was told that Head Office were in control of it and that the store would pass on the Complainant’s phone number to get Head Office to contact him. The following week, he again received a zero hours payslip and had not been contacted by anyone in relation to this. At the time of submitting his claim, the Complainant had not received any contact from the Respondent Company in relation to the correction of the BIK, his holiday hours or his P45.

After he resigned, the Complainant contacted the Assistant Store Manager to ask about the reversal of this BIK as he did not meet to criteria to have the deduction applied and the Complainant was informed that the matter had been passed on to the Personnel Manager.

The amount in dispute is €202.40

The Company policy clearly states that if the employee does not meet the PRSI criteria for illness benefit then the Company would not make the deduction, once the employee can provide evidence that this is the case.

The Complainant’s tax has been impacted and he has had to go to Revenue to address this.

The Complainant stated that he did follow the company policy by contacting a number of people in the Company regarding the deduction. He stated that there were other grievances he had at this time and chose not to pursue them with the Company but asked for this matter, his holidays and his P45 to be addressed.

On the day of the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he had since received payment for his annual leave and his P45. He stated that he had to get his P5 corrected by Revenue due to the Company’s error.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

After 2012 the Company’s sick pay policy was adjusted to deduct the Illness Benefit from the Department of Social Protection.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had received the policy and that he should have followed it as he had been trained on it when he commenced his employment with the Company.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act and the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act.

I have investigated the above complaint and make the following decision in accordance with the relevant sections of the legislation set out above and the following are my conclusions:  

The Respondent has made an unlawful deduction of €202.40 from the Complainant’s wages, as outlined in their own policy. This has caused the Complainant a lot of personal time in trying to get this matter resolved and in getting his P45 corrected. It should have been resolved based on the Respondent Company’s own process and they made no effort to do so.

I am awarding the Complainant the the full amount of €202.40 that is in dispute.

Dated:   25^th August 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Key Words: