ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016910
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Cleaner | Contract Cleaning Company |
Representatives |
| Anthony Collins |
Complaint:
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-00021956-001 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00021956-002 | 19/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant is employed as a Cleaner since 24th April 2017. He works full time and is paid €11.05 per hour. He has claimed that his employer has made an unlawful deduction from his wages. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA 21956-001/002
The Complainant stated that he was called to a meeting on 29th August 2018 to discuss a discrepancy between actual hours worked and hours charged. At the meeting he accepted that he was overpaid 15 hours. His employer deducted 18 hours in one transaction from his wages without his agreement. He believes that he should be re-imbursed 3 hours and that the employer should have given one week’s notice and agree how it would be repaid. He believes that it was an illegal deduction from his wages. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA 21956-001/002
The Respondent stated that they discovered a discrepancy between actual hours worked and the hours claimed. The Complainant has accepted that he was overpaid by 15 hours. They understood that he had agreed to the recoupment. They also believed that he had agreed to one transaction. They advised payroll accordingly. 18 hours were deducted in the next payment to him. They accept the Complainant’s assertion that it was 15 not 18 hours overpayment. They undertook to reimburse him immediately. They were unaware of the need for the giving of one week’s notice.
|
Findings and Conclusions: CA 21956-001/002
I note that there was agreement between the parties that there was an overpayment.
I note that the Respondent has accepted that the overpayment was in respect of 15 hours not 18 and they have undertaken to re-imburse the Complainant immediately.
I note that the Complainant has accepted this.
This leaves the issue of the Complainant’s claim for the failure to give one week’s notice and the matter of how the recoupment was implemented.
Sec 5 (5) of the Payment of Wages Act states “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.
Therefore, I find that this transaction was not a deduction from wages, but rather reimbursement of an overpayment.
I find that no breach of Sec 5 has taken place.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that no breach of Sec 5 has taken place.
I have decided that this complaint fails.
|
Dated: 27th November, 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Recouping an overpayment |