ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008577
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Senior Cabin Crew Member | An Airline |
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-00011211-002 | 09/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The dispute concerns an alleged overpayment of Salary and the Employers efforts to recover same. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was promoted to the position of Senior Cabin Crew member on the 24th February 2014 at an offered Salary of € 32,257. In November 2016, the Respondent informed the Complainant that an error had been made and his salary on promotion should have been €30,965. An overpayment of €3,659 was now alleged to have arisen. The Respondent employer immediately commenced a deductions arrangement to recover the €3,659. This is completely illegal as the Complainant has a letter of Contract stating the earlier figure of €32,257 and was never afforded the opportunity to discuss the recovery deductions. In fact, in April 2014 he had queried his new salary and the figure of €32,257 had been confirmed. It must be noted that the alleged overpayment had existed for a period in excess of two and one half years. In summary, the Respondents do not have proper Legal Authority, either under Contact Law or the Payment of Wages Act for their actions. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent admitted that due to an Administrative error an overpayment of Salary had existed for two and one half years as alleged. The Respondent pointed to the Complainant’s Contract of Employment – Clause 5.2 as providing legal Authority for the Deductions. In addition, they referenced Section 5(1) and 5(5) of the Payment of Wages Act ,1991 to further reinforce their legal position. However, in recognition of the errors made by the Employer that had reviewed the entire situation and decided to only seek a repayment for a 12-month period – reducing the amount from€3,569 to €1,289. This was very fair and reasonable approach in situation where the Legal Authority was effectively on their side. The Adjudication should reflect this fact and the claim should be dismissed. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 The Law Section 5 (1) and 5(5) of the Payment of Wages Act ,1991 applies and is quoted below. Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers. 5
( 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 (5) Nothing in this section applies to— ( a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where— (i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of— (I) any overpayment of wages, or
The Complainant ‘s contract of employment at Clause 5.2 states “The Company reserves the right to make deductions from payments due to you so as to reimburse sums due by you to the Company”. 3:2 Consideration of the Evidence The evidence presented clearly pointed to the legal appropriateness of the Respondent position. It would be remiss not to note that the administrative errors that lead to a salary being significantly over paid for a period in excess of 2 and one half years was certainly serious mal administration by the Respondent. In particular, it was bizarre that when the Salary position of the Complainant was queried by the Complainant himself in April 2014 the error was not picked up and remedied before it had become significant. However, it has to be noted , as well , that the effective writing off by the Respondent of almost two thirds of the arrears was a reasonable gesture. 3:3 Conclusion Taking all the evidence into account I find that on strict legality of Section 5 (sub sections 1 & 5) of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 the claim is not well founded. The Claim is dismissed. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary decision /Refer to Section 3 above for detailed arguments. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00011211-002 | Claim is dismissed. |
Dated: 1st February 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words: