PWD1816

The Adjudication Officer, in a decision dated 14^thSeptember 2017, decided that the complaint should fail.

The case

The Respondent in this case is a hotel. The Appellant’s contract of employment provides that uniforms must be worn at all times and also provides that

• “The cost of the Uniform must be borne by the employee. A deduction of €3.00 will be made each week until full payment is received. You will be advised of the amount on commencement of employment. Should you leave employment before the full payment is received, the outstanding amount will be deducted from your final wage payment’

Upon the instruction of the Appellant in January 2017 the amount of weekly deduction was increased to €30.00 per week.

The Appellant ceased his employment with the Respondent in March 2017 and an amount of €69.50 was deducted from his final pay being the outstanding balance of payment in respect of his uniform.

Position of the Appellant

The Appellant contends that the cost of the uniform was excessive and that consequently the total amount of deductions made from his pay was excessive. He submitted that the Respondent could have purchased the uniform concerned more cheaply. He submitted that he did not receive his uniform until after he had left the employment.

The Appellant submitted that he had agreed to a deduction of €3.00 per week from November 2016 and that he had asked that this deduction be increased to €30.00 per week in early 2017 which it was. He submitted that the balancing deduction was, in view of his position in respect of cost of uniform, excessive.

Position of the Respondent

The Respondent contends that all deductions made from the pay of the Appellant were authorised by him as a result of his signed acceptance of his contract of employment in October 2016. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was advised by e-mail of 25^thOctober 2016 of the total cost of his uniform and in respect of which deductions would commence. The Respondent further submitted that the increase in deduction to €30.00 per week took place at the request of the Appellant made in writing in January 2017. The Respondent also submitted that the balancing deduction made from the Appellant’s final wage payment was made in accordance with the authorisation provided by the Appellant in his contract of employment.

The Law

The primary issue before the Court in this case is whether the Appellant suffered a deduction from his wages which was unlawful having regard to the Act at Section 5(1). The Act at section 5(1) provides as follows;

• 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.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Appellant’s contract of employment authorised the making of deductions from the pay of the Appellant of €3.00 per week in respect of the cost of uniform. It is common case that the Appellant, in January 2017, authorised in writing the making of deductions of €30.00 per week from his pay.

There is no dispute as to whether the Appellant was aware of the total cost of his uniform before any deductions were made. Neither is there a dispute that the final deduction made from the pay of the Appellant on termination of his employment was other than that authorised by his contract of employment.

In all of the circumstances the Court finds that the Respondent made no deduction from the pay of the Appellant which was in breach of the Act at Section 5(1).

Determination

The Court determines, for the reasons outlined above, that the appeal of the Appellant cannot succeed.

The Court accordingly affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
4 April 2018______________________
SCChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.