Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Maintenance worker

Maintenance operations company

Representatives

Self

Self

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-00013321-001

26/08/2017

The Complainant is a maintenance worker. He started working for the Respondent on the 8th of March 2017. His employment ended on the 16th of August 2017. The claim was lodged with the WRC on the 26th of August 2017.

The Complainant was paid €480.00 gross per week for a forty hour week.

His work involved maintenance of the green areas running alongside the railway line.

His evidence was that he was told by his line manager to follow the instructions of the railway “look outs” as regards to when he could and could not work on the railway line.

He stated he did not receive a contract of employment.   He said there was no clock in/clock out system in his workplace.

He said that his last payslip was for a payment of €1,026.00 gross but incurred a deduction of €1,050.00. His payslip referred to deduction = 17.5x5wkso/pd. He received no payment on foot of this payslip.

He said that he had not received any notice of this deduction.   He wasn’t sure what this deduction was for.

He contacted Citizens Information and contacted the Respondent.

Ultimately, he was told that it was because he was leaving work early for the five weeks before his employment ended.

He disputed that he was leaving early.

The Respondent is a contractor providing maintenance work on the grass margins along the railway line.

The managing director gave evidence.

He confirmed that all staff were to commence work from the yard. He agreed that there was no clock in system, but advised that there was a key code on the yard gate and this provided information for him on who was entering and leaving the yard and at what time.

He stated that the Complainant was given detailed instructions as to start time, lunch time, finish time.

He said that he received a complaint from the company he was contracted to provide the service to, that his staff were leaving the worksite early.

He said that the deduction was to cover this early leaving.

He further stated that he made the deductions for other staff members and there was no complaint by them.

The Complainant did receive a payslip and the final payslip with the deduction was provided to me.

The Respondent stated that there was a contract of employment but he was not in a position to provide this to me at the hearing.   The Complainant disputed that he received a contract. It was agreed that no notification was given in writing of the deduction prior to same.

Section 5 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act states that:

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

It was agreed by the parties that no notice was given to the Complainant that this deduction would be made.

It was agreed that the deduction did take place.

As such, the deduction can only be described as a unilateral deduction.

There was a dispute between the parties as to their interactions before the employment relationship ended.

However, there was no compliance with Section 5 (2) of the Act which regulates the employment relationship and deductions.   Ignorance of the law is no defence for the Respondent. To effectively cancel the last payment due to the Complainant could not be considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

I award the Complainant the sum of €1,026.00 which was his last pay due on foot of his payslip for period 33. This is a gross payment and it should be taxed accordingly.

Deduction