Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A make-up artist

A hair and beauty salon.

Representatives

self

Brian Dolan, Peninsula Group Limited

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-00019824-001

18/06/2018

The Complainant commenced employment as a make-up artist with the Respondent on 23/04/2018 and remained in employment until 06/06/2018, a period of 6 weeks and two days.

The Complainant lodged her complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on 18th June 2018.

The complaint was made under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Complainant commenced employment on 23/04/2018, the original start date was to be 01/05/2018. The Complainant was asked to start one week early for training purposes.

Before the commencement of her employment the Complainant requested a copy of her official contract to establish her exact terms of employment, she was issued with an employee handbook.

At the specific request of her employer the Complainant attended two training courses, one in Northern Ireland and the second in Dublin. Both training courses were arranged and paid for by the Respondent.

The Complainant was issued with a contract on 11/05/2018 which she did not sign due to the vagueness of the job description and several of the employment terms.

The Complainant met with the Respondent on 10/05/2018 and again on 06/06/2018, these meetings focussed on the day to day jobs being undertaken by the Complainant that she felt did not fit into the job description issued to her.

The Complainant offered suggestions to the Respondent on how they could grow the business in the make-up area and increase the customer base.

The Complainant resigned from the business without ever signing the contract presented to her.

On 08/06/2018 the Complainant was due a wage payment – she received no wages. The Complainant contacted the Respondent and was informed that he would be in touch by 12/06/2018. There was no contact from him by this date and the Complainant then sent an email on 13/06/2018 requesting the payment. The same day the Respondent replied by email informing her that she would be paid €1211.60 less €908.00 which was the cost of the two training courses. The Complainant replied immediately by email pointing out that they had no right to make this deduction from her pay.

On 15/06/2018 the Complainant received €249.08 into her bank account, lodged by the Respondent.

The Complainant feels the Respondent’s actions are a breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Respondent’s representative referred to the Employee Handbook and specifically to the section titled “Joining our Organisation”. In this section Clauses D and E address the subject of training and read as follows:

D) Employee Training

At the commencement of your employment you will receive training for your specific job, and as your employment progresses your skills may be extended to encompass new job activities within the business. Any training needs should be raised with your Manager. We may offer the following types of training where such needs are identified.

On-the-job

Cross Training

Skills Training

Refresher Training

E) Training Agreement.

The Company has a policy of encouraging its employees to undertake training in order to further their career within the Company. This will include assisting with costs of the training. However, in the event of termination of employment, for whatever reason, the Company will seek reimbursement of the costs in line with the Training Agreement. Further details are available separately.

The Respondent representative also made reference to section 5 of the 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 –

(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 ………..

The representative also raised the possibility of the Complainant using the training acquired for the benefit of a competitor, such a competitor could be the Complainant herself.

In reply to this the Complainant said this would not happen as she could not afford the necessary insurance.

Many organisations provide an employee handbook that forms part of the terms and conditions of employment and acceptance of such terms and conditions are deemed to be conditions of employment.

I note that the Complainant had not signed the contract provided to her and had discussed the content therein with the Respondent on more than one occasion.

If training of employees is a regular feature in the Respondent’s business the Training Policy and Agreement should be a standalone policy and the content made very clear to employees before the organisation starts to invest money in their training.

In this instant case both the Complainant and the Respondent have presented persuasive arguments.

The Complainant has clearly stated that she will not be using the training provided and paid for by the Respondent in any way in competition with the Respondent.

I have given this matter a fair degree of consideration and believe that the fairest outcome is that both the Complainant and Respondent pay for one of the training courses each. In other words, the Respondent should reimburse to the Complainant the sum of €450.00.  

As outlined above.

Payment of Wages Act, 1991.