ADJ-00010661

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Financial Services Adviser

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-00014063-001

20/09/2017

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

CA-00014063-002

20/09/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00014063-003

20/09/2017

The claimant had been employed as a Senior lending Officer with the respondent from the 7th.November 2012 to the 24th.March 2017.The claimant was initially employed on a fixed term contract and was made permanent in September 2014. The claimant contended that the respondent was in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 for failing to pay him a uniform allowance and for making an illegal deduction from his final payslip for educational fees.He asserted that the combined total owed was €1,457.22.

He asserted that on the day he signed his permanent contract he was advised by his manager that he was entitled to a biannual uniform allowance in light of his 2 years service.He submitted that the manager undertook to contact the financial accountant to sort it but never did .The claimant indicated that he raised it again with the manager before he left the employment .On submitting an application for the allowance prior to leaving , the claimant was advised that “ if no receipts were submitted in the relevant year , then no payment can be made”.The claimant advanced that his manager had never told him when she would get the matter sorted that he had to submit receipts and it was argued that there was no reference to receipts in either of his contracts of employment or in the procedural agreement with the company .The claimant stated that he was not a trade union member and had been unaware of how to process his claim .He left the matter with his manager assuming it would be sorted and was unaware of any claims proceedure. The claimant submitted that if the claim for the payment of the uniform was deemed to be out of time , he wished to have the matter dealt with under the Industrial Relations Acts.

The claimant submitted that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his wages by deducting the sum of €665.56 in his final payment in March 2017 - he submitted that the deduction was not authorised by him or by any term in either of his contracts.It was submitted that in May 2017, the respondent informed the claimant that “ Management have decided that the refunds will not have to be paid”.The claimant was seeking the reimbursement of the €665.65.

The respondent asserted that there was a comprehensive procedural agreement in place between SIPTU and the respondent and that the agreement covered both matters in dispute.It was submitted that the claimant was a member of SIPTU.

The terms of the procedural agreement relating to uniform allowance was presented and it was submitted that the claimant was well aware of custom and practise within the company for submission of receipts in the relevant year.The company used a use it or loose it approach and it was advanced that no receipts had ever been submitted by the claimant.It was contended that only permanent staff members can avail of the allowance and that receipts are submitted within a 2 year cycle with a “ use it or loose it “ approach applying. It was submitted that several other staff members had been affected by this use it or loose it approach and that the claimant could not argue that he was being treated any differently or less favourably than anyone else.

It was submitted that the claimant was provided with paid time off, course fees study leave   and expenses to undertake a course of study in 2016/2017 amounting to €885.00.The procedural agreement between SIPTU and the respondent provides “Repayment of funding – External Funded Programmes : Staff leaving their employment with ….during the course of their studies or within 3 years of completion will be required to repay the full cost of the support.The respondent will take into account individual circumstances. Discontinuation of a programme of study : In the event of a staff member failing to complete an approved programme , the staff member will be required to repay the full cost of the support provided .The respondent will take into account individual circumstances.”

It was contended that the rule was that any monies owed would be deducted from the final payslip.It was advanced that the claimant at all times acknowledged his obligation to reimburse the respondent but changed his position on the 23rd.August 2017.It was submitted that the deduction was discussed with the claimant at a meeting with the respondent on the 13th.March and followed up in a letter to him dated the 14th.March2017.

The respondent set out a detailed account of the ensuing exchanges between the parties.It was submitted that the claimant emailed the financial accountant on the 23rd.March advising that he owed €885 for fees – this was the day before the claimant left the employment and according to the respondent was the first time the uniform issue was raised.On the 11th.May 2017 , the accountant advised the claimant that management had decided that refunds would not have to be repaid – this meant that the respondent “ would not be pursuing the net amount owing by the claimant €219.44)on foot of the educational supports provided to him as advised initially in the letter to him dated the 11th.April 2017.”It was advanced that this was clarified in a later email to the claimant – as a gesture of goodwill. Following further exchanges of emails, the claimant’s solicitor wrote to the respondent on the 23rd.August 2017 “ demanding retrospective repayment of not only the full Uniform allowance which he calculated at €791.66 but also of the deduction for Educational Financial Supports from his payslip amounting to €665.66.

It was submitted that the claimant was aware of the obligation to repay educational supports as set out in his email correspondence – he never objected to same at the meeting on the 13th.March 2017 and never appealed the matter.

It was submitted that the claimant was aware of the practise of submitting vouched receipts for uniform expenses and failed to submit any – he was provided with a uniform in May 2016 and never raised the issue of retrospective payment.Clarity on the matter was only sought on the day before the claimant was leaving the employment .It was submitted that the claimant was a member of the union , had access to the procedural agreement and knowledge of the practical application of the union allowance.IT was submitted that the respondent acted in good faith at all times and that the claim had no merit.