Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Accounts Administrator

A Logistics Company

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00015593-001

05/11/2017

The complainant asserts that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the holiday pay due to him at the end of his employment. The respondent denies the claim.

The complainant outlined that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his salary. He started work on the 27th June 2016 and ceased working for the respondent on the 20th October 2017. His gross salary is €2,437.50 per month. He stated that he was owed three weeks’ annual leave at the end of his employment. He took the 10 days of annual leave he was entitled to in 2016 but only 1 of the 15 days he was entitled to in 2017. The respondent paid him only €372 euros (net) and he did not know the reason for the deduction.

The complainant outlined that the respondent had not understood his work. He did not accept that he had cost the respondent money. They had asked for passwords which he did not have and he had provided the respondent with all the passwords he had. He outlined that the files were automated on a server and required a password to be modified. The respondent was able to recover the files and they say they spent €666 on recovery. He never saw a receipt and it would only cost €15 to recover the password.

The complainant gave the respondent notice on the 25th September 2017 and he worked for one further week. He did not work for the period of the 2nd October to the 20th October 2017. They did not pay him for these weeks and did not give notice of the deduction in the week beforehand. The complainant said that he also complained about bullying. He did not report it as this related to the CEO. He was blamed for the mistakes of others. His team leader also complained about the CEO, who was rude.

The complainant said he had booked annual leave between the 9th to 20th October. This request was in the system and the respondent never asked him to work during his whole notice period. He emailed the respondent on the 2nd October 2017 and did not phone them. He was also contacted on the 13th October 2017. The complainant submitted that the deduction was not fair and reasonable as it was excessive. It should cost €15 or €25 to resolve the password issue. While the respondent referred to their employee handbook, this stated that an employee should not give their passwords to others. There were passwords on four systems that are changed every couple of months. He used over 20 passwords. On the 6th October 2017, they asked for two passwords, but they already had one password on file. They could still work on all files, but just could not make changes to the background. He had automated the files so that one did not have to make changes.

The complainant referred to his email of the 12th October 2017 where he offered to help with the files. He did not want to go in as they may have deducted the monies anyway. They often deducted monies from clients. He did not know that the respondent was going to pay someone €666 to access the passwords and he did not know the passwords.

The respondent outlined that the complainant started on 27th June 2016 and took all his leave for the year. He resigned on the 25th September 2017 to leave on the 20th October 2017. The respondent requested that he work his notice. He did not attend the workplace on the 29th September 2017 and rang on Monday, 2nd October 2017 to say that he would not be coming in.

The complainant had passwords for files and the respondent sought the passwords. The complainant had created files and the respondent believed that he knew the passwords. The complainant had initially stated in his emails that he had provided the passwords and later that there were no passwords. The respondent had to employ a contractor to access the files. The respondent made a deduction of €666 to cover this cost.

The respondent stated that the complainant’s salary had increased in September 2017 from €2,145 per month to €2,437 per month. He was owed 14 days annual leave and the respondent calculated this as €99 per day. On the 11th October 2017, the respondent informed the complainant of the deduction in advance of it being made. This email stated that if the complainant did not work his notice and the respondent incurred expense, this would be imposed on the complainant. The respondent had not approved the annual leave and had asked the complainant to work out his notice.

The respondent outlined that there was no word of any bullying at any time during the complainant’s employment or in his resignation letter. This was only mentioned in the emails about not being paid. The respondent did not engage the disciplinary policy regarding the complainant not attending work as he was gone. It expected him to work his notice and it was only when he left that it realised the issue with accessing files. The line manager emailed the complainant on the 5th October 2017 to ask for the passwords. The Financial Director emailed on the 6th October 2017 to also ask for the passwords. The HR Director emailed the complainant on the 2nd October and the 11th October 2017. The respondent then engaged the contractor to resolve the issue. The files related to finance and allowed for the automatic upload of information.

The respondent said that the adjudication was the first time she had seen the document with a lower cost to access the files and they would have used this method, had they known. This issue only arose because the complainant did not give the passwords and did not work out his notice. He walked out and left the respondent high and dry with no passwords. The respondent communicated with him and he asked them to stop communicating.

The respondent stated that the complainant was owed €1,386 gross in holiday pay and a deduction of €666 was made. He was paid the remaining €720 in December 2017. The complainant appeared to have been taxed high as he started new employment on the 2nd October 2017.

This is a complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act. Section 5 regulates permissible deductions from an employee’s wages. It permits deductions made in accordance with a contract of employment. It permits a deduction for an act or omission of an employee where this is required or authorised by the contract of employment and the employee is notified of this provision. It further requires that the employee be notified of the deduction at least one week in advance. There is a requirement that any deduction be “fair and reasonable” in the circumstances.

The definition of “wages” in the Payment of Wages Act includes holiday pay. The respondent deducted monies from the wages due to the complainant; this deduction was made to cesser annual leave pay. The complainant gave notice to end the employment relationship. He did not attend work after the 29th September 2017. The respondent wished for the complainant to work his notice. It transpires that the complainant commenced working for another employer during his notice period. Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the complainant possessed the passwords sought by the respondent, but declined to provide them. The respondent engaged a contractor to resolve the issue. While the complainant criticises the cost of this work, he did not provide the passwords, nor any information about a cheaper fix.

Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, I find that the deduction made by the respondent is not an unlawful deduction. The HR Director’s email of the 11th October 2017 is clear that monies would be deducted from the outstanding wages for costs incurred. The respondent referred to the complainant’s contract of employment and deducted only the cost of accessing the passwords. The deduction was fair and reasonable, given the multiple requests for the passwords. The complaint is, therefore, not well founded.

CA-00015993-001

The complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act / section 5

‘Fair and reasonable’