FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : HR FOODS LTD - AND - NOEL O' LOUGHLIN DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. ADJ-00010382.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 16 March 2018 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is Mr O’Loughlin’s (‘the Complainant’) appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-10382, dated 18 December 2017) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the 1991 Act’). The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 26 January 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 16 March 2018. The Complainant had referred a number of complainants against his former employer, HR Foods Limited (‘the Respondent’), to the Workplace Relations Commission. However, his appeal to this Court is confined to two matters in respect of which his claims were held at first instance not to be well-founded. Those claims bore the reference number CA-00013818-003.
The first of those matters encompassed by the claim under the 1991 Act refers to the non-payment of bonus of up to 30% of base salary that the Complainant alleges he was contractually entitled to. The Complainant’s contract of employment was exhibited at the hearing of the appeal. It provides, in relevant part, as follows: “A Bonus Scheme of up to 30% of Salary is dependent on Agreed KPIs will be paid Quarterly in Arrears(sic).” A schedule of agreed KPIs was also exhibited. However, the Complainant and Mr John Hannon, Managing Director of the Respondent, gave totally conflicting evidence in relation to the extent to which the Complainant had achieved his agreed KPIs during his three months or so of employment with the Respondent in 2017.
Neither the bonus scheme as outlined in the Complainant’s contract of employment nor the document outlining his KPIs for 2017 sets out any metric for determining what level of bonus was payable to the Complainant having regard to his performance in any particular quarter. It is not for the Court to superimpose a metric on such a bonus scheme nor it is the Court’s role, in an appeal under the 1991 Act, to attempt to retrospectively assess the Complainant’s actual performance vis-�-vis his agreed KPIs. In the circumstances, therefore, the Complainant has not made out a stateable case to the Court in respect of this aspect of his claim.
The second element of the claim encompassed by CA-00013818 relates to a series of deductions made by the Respondent from the Complainant’s salary totalling €455.04 which the Complainant alleges were unlawful deductions with the meaning of the 1991 Act. The Respondent submits that the Complainant consented in writing to the aforementioned deductions and exhibited a document signed by the Complainant to this effect. The Complainant agreed that he had signed this agreement consenting to the regular deductions totalling €455.04 in repayment of a salary overpayment made to him in January 2017. In the circumstances, the deductions made on foot of that written agreement cannot be regarded as unlawful deductions for the purposes of the 1991 Act and the Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the written agreement between the parties.
`
Determination
Having regard to the foregoing and the reasons set out above, the Court determines that neither ground of appeal advanced by the Complainant is well-founded. The appeal fails in its entirety and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
21 March, 2018.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.