ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008521
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Hotel |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00011587-001 | 26/05/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00011587-002 | 26/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other act as may be referred to in the 2015 Act, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution Section 6 Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and the referral has been made within six months of the initial circumstances of the relevant contravention.
The complainant withdrew his complainant ADJ 8521 CA 11587-002.
Background:
The complainant seeks an adjudication, in relation to contractually agreed deductions that were made from his weekly pay in relation to is uniform. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced working with the respondent as a night porter in October, 2016. It was agreed between the parties and was a term of the complainant’s contract, that €3.00 per week would be deducted from his pay in order to pay for his uniform. The total cost of the uniform was €318.50. There were some issues with the uniform. The complainant stated that he would not wear a barman’s uniform as he was not a barman. He also took issue with the name on his payslip that he was to sign in relation to receipt of the uniform. In late January he requested that the €3.00 per week be increased to € 30.00. He requested that because he knew he was unhappy working for the respondent and would probably be leaving. He didn’t want the entire amount due to ‘zero out’ his last pay. He left on the 31st March, 2017. The uniform was delivered to his wife’s address after he had terminated his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant contractually agreed to the deductions. In January he requested that the amount be increased from €3.00 to €30.00 per week. The uniform was delivered to the respondent in late October, 2016. The complainant refused to sign for it due to the issue of his name being incorrect on his payslip. That matter was resolved shortly after but the complainant refused to wear the uniform because he said it was a barman’s uniform. It was not. It was a black suit. After he left his employment the suit was sent to his wife’s address. The respondent made enquires to see if the supplier would take the suit back but they refused to. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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. The complainant agreed as part of the terms and condition of employment that € 3.00 per week would be deducted from his pay. He requested that that amount be increased to € 30 per week. He requested the increase so that the amount due for the uniform, upon leaving his employment, wouldn’t leave him with nothing in his last pay cheque. At the time the complainant made that request he knew that he was unhappy working for the respondent. Furthermore, he stated that he knew he wouldn’t be staying. I find that the respondent did not breach Section 5 of the Act when they deducted the agreed sums from the complainant’s wages. They did so pursuant to the contractually agreed terms of the complainant’s contract of employment and with the express consent of the complainant. The fact that the complainant didn’t like his uniform or refused to wear it is irrelevant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complainant’s complaint ADJ 8521 , CA-00011587-001 fails.
Dated: 14th September 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words: