PWD1836

This is an appeal on behalf of G4S Secure Solutions (Ire) Limited (‘the Respondent’) from two decisions of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00008111, CA-0010769-005 and CA-0010769-006 - both dated 4 April 2018) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the Act’). The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 14 May 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 26 June 2018.

The first complaint under the Act relates to a payment of €688.00 the Complainant submits is owed to him in respect of the period 10 October 2016 to 23 October 2016 during which he worked only 14 hours in place of his contracted 78 hours per fortnight as a consequence of the Respondent’s decision to cancel his shifts at short notice. The second complaint under the Act relates to the period 24 October 2016 to 6 November 2016 in respect of which the Complainant believes he is owed €451.50. The Respondent did not attend at the hearing before the Adjudication Officer who decided – on the basis of the Complainant’s uncontested evidence – that both complaints under the Act were well-founded.

The Parties’ Submissions

The Complainant submits that he was ready and available to work the hours that he was originally scheduled to work in the two pay periods that fell between 10 October 2016 and 6 November 2016. In those circumstances, he says, he was entitled to (and did) utilise the Respondent’s ‘make-up time policy’ (‘MUT’) to claim payment for the balance of his 78 guaranteed hours per fortnight. The Complainant accepts that he did not send an email to the dedicated MUT email address but instead followed the instructions that were specified on his payslip.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant did not utilise the MUT procedure, with which he was very familiar, to claim payment for the shifts in question and, therefore, no payment is due to him.

Decision

The Company’s submission is predicated on their being a policy in place to make-up payments to employees in circumstances where they receive fewer than their contracted hours in a given fortnightly pay period. It is common case that the Complainant did not utilise the dedicated MUT email address to submit his claim in respect of the shortfall in working hours that occurred in his case in October and November 2016. He did, however, notify the Respondent of his claim by utilising an email address stated on the face of his payslips.

In all the circumstances, therefore, the Court finds that the monies claimed by the Complainant are properly payable to him within the meaning of the Act. The decisions of the Adjudication Officer are, accordingly, upheld.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
MK______________________
18 December 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.