ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012934
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Security Agent | Security Company |
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-00017022-001 | 24/01/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/04/2018
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 was employed as a Security Agent from 10th October 2017 to 15th December 2017. He was paid €11.05 per hour plus add ons. He worked an average of 34 hours per week. He has claimed that he is owed wages in respect of night shifts, training and minimum notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
1)Night Shift allowance He stated that he worked on 24 occasions (dates provided) and was not paid a night shift allowance of €16.80 per night = €403.20. 2)Minimum Notice He did not get minimum notice when his employment was terminated. He has claimed one week’s wages. 3)Training allowance |
He worked three days on an induction training course and as not paid. He is claiming 3 X 8 hours X €11.05.
4) Uniform Money deducted
He stated that monies were deducted for uniforms and he was unaware of the reason.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
1)Night Shift Allowance |
They stated that a new Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the Security business came into force on 1st June 2017. There is no provision for night shift allowance in this ERO. This was specifically referred to at induction and details were provided.
This claim is rejected.
2)Minimum Notice
The Claimant had 8 weeks service and so did not qualify for minimum notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.
This claim is rejected.
3) Training Allowance
The Claimant attended an open day on 10th October 2017. He then attended a 3-day induction training programme on 11th, 12th and 13th October.
He was advised at this training programme that induction training is not paid for. This was contained in the training material provided at this training. It stated, “Induction Training is not paid for”. (details supplied).
If it was decided that these training days should be paid for then it should be at the national minimum wage rate.
They also stated that the ERO in Section 1 (2)(c)(i) “Rates of Remuneration” Where a worker who has attained the age of 18 years undergoes a course of study or training authorised by the employer within the workplace or elsewhere during normal working hours, such courses or training to be prescribed in regulations made by the Minister pursuant to section 3 of the Act of 2000 for the purposes of section 16 of that Act, the worker shall be remunerated by his or her employer in respect of his or her working hours at a rate of pay that is not less than the following: (i) in respect of the first one-third (but not exceeding 12 months) of the total study or training period, 75 per cent of the rate specified in paragraph (1).
Also in the ERO under (11) Training it stated Where training is provided for and paid by the employer for new entrants and the worker leaves the employer: within 3 months the employer can deduct 16 hours pay for training.
This claim is rejected.
4) Uniforms
(12) Uniforms: The ERO states if a worker leaves the organisation within 3 months of the issuance of uniform item(s) to him/her, the employer may deduct 100% of the actual verified cost of the uniform item(s) Also If a worker leaves an organisation and the uniform items are not returned to the organisation, the cost of the uniform items may be deducted from any payment due to the worker.
Therefore, the Respondent was entitled to recover monies in respect of uniforms.
This claim is rejected.
Findings and Conclusions:
1)Night Shift Allowance I note the provisions of the new ERO for the security industry. I note that there is no night shift allowance provided for. Therefore, I find that the Complainant has no entitlement to the monies claimed. I find that there was no illegal deduction from his wages. 2)Minimum Notice I find that the Complainant has not the requisite 13 weeks service to qualify for notice, as specified in the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act. Therefore, I find that the Complainant has no entitlement to the monies claimed. I find that there was no illegal deduction from his wages. 3)Training I find that he attended a 3-day induction training programme on 11th, 12th and 13th October 2017. I find that he should have been paid for those training days at the rate of 75 % of the rate as per the terms of the ERO, amounting to €11.05 per hour X 75 % = €8.29 X 3 days X 8 Hours = €198.96. I find that as per the terms of the ERO cited above, 16 hours may be deducted if the worker leaves within 3 months. Therefore 16 hours may be deducted amounting to 16 X €8.29 = €132.64, leaving a balance due of €66.32. I find that the Complainant is due €66.32 and so the Respondent has made an illegal deduction of that amount. |
4) Uniforms
I note the provisions of the WERO cited above. I find that as the Complainant’s employment ended within 3 months the Respiondent was entitled to deduct the cost of the uniform. I find that no illegal deduction was made. |
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 the claim is well founded in part only.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €66.32 within six weeks of the date below.
|
Dated: 05/09/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Wages owing |