ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018845
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Clerical Officer | Government Department |
Complaints:
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-00024398-001 | 20/12/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00024434-001 | 21/12/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00025229-001 | 23/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00025229-002 | 23/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00025229-003 | 23/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00025229-004 | 23/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00025229-005 | 23/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00025229-006 | 23/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/03/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant is employed as a Clerical Officer since 2001. He is paid €604.71 per week. He has claimed that the Respondent has made illegal deductions from his wages. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
1)CA 24398-001 This claim is in respect of a situation that occurred on 30th March 2016 where €98.09 was deemed an overpayment. The actual deductions were made between 12th January 2018 and 15th February 2019. He has claimed that he was at work that day until 2.29pm. He was deducted a full day even though he was at work until 2.29pm. The complaint was received on 20th December 2018 2)CA 24434-001 This was in respect of a deduction based on 2nd May 2016, in respect of a Bank Holiday, which is not a working day. The deductions were implemented between 12th January 2018 and February 2019. 3) CA 25229-001 He stated that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from his wages on the grounds that he had exceeded 183 days off work in four-year period. He stated that he had not exceeded 183 days. The deductions ran from 13th July 2018 to 17th August 2018.
4) CA 25229-002 He stated that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from his wages on the grounds that he had exceeded 183 days off work in four-year period. He stated that he had not exceeded 183 days He stated that the illegal deductions began on 23th July 2018. 5) CA 25229-003 He stated that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from his wages on the grounds that he had exceeded 183 days off work in four-year period. He stated that he had not exceeded 183 days The deductions were made 27th July 2018 6) CA 25229-004 He stated that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from his wages on the grounds that he had exceeded 183 days off work in four-year period. He stated that he had not exceeded 183 days The deductions were made 23rd August 2018. 7) CA 25229-005 He stated that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from his wages on the grounds that he had exceeded 183 days off work in four-year period. He stated that he had not exceeded 183 days The deductions were made 10th August 2018. 8) CA 25229-006 He stated that the Respondent made an illegal deduction from his wages on the grounds that he had exceeded 183 days off work in four-year period. He stated that he had not exceeded 183 days. The deductions were made 17th August 2018. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
1)CA 24398-001 This claim is in respect of an alleged illegal deduction incurred on 30th March 2016. This complaint is clearly outside the 6 months statutory time frame allowed under this Act and so is not within the WRC’s jurisdiction. Also, the recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having been on certified sick leave on that date in question. The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act, Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. Regarding 30th March 2016, they stated that the Complainant’s manager requested a medical certificate and received one covering 25th March to 14th April. He claimed social welfare for that period of time including the 30th March. Therefore, they were entitled to make that deduction for that overpayment. |
2)CA 24434-001
This claim is in respect of an alleged illegal deduction incurred on 2nd May 2016. This complaint is clearly outside the 6 months statutory time frame allowed under this Act and so is not within the WRC’s jurisdiction.
Also, the recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having been on certified sick leave on that date in question. The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. This was in respect of a Bank Holiday. He was certified out sick on that Bank Holiday and it counts as a sick day.
3) CA 25229-001
The recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having exceeded 183 days in the previous 4 years. The Complainant rejected this and asserted that he had considerably less than 183 days in that period. As per the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)“any overpayment of wages. .
4) CA 25229-002
The recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having exceeded 183 days in the previous 4 years. The Complainant rejected this and asserted that he had considerably less than 183 days in that period. As per the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages.
5) CA 25229-003
The recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having exceeded 183 days in the previous 4 years. The Complainant rejected this and asserted that he had considerably less than 183 days in that period. As per the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages.
6) CA 25229-004
The recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having exceeded 183 days in the previous 4 years. The Complainant rejected this and asserted that he had considerably less than 183 days in that period. As per the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages.
7) CA 25229-005
The recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having exceeded 183 days in the previous 4 years. The Complainant rejected this and asserted that he had considerably less than 183 days in that period. As per the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I) “any overpayment of wages.
8) CA 25229-006
The recoupment of pay was due to the Complainant having exceeded 183 days in the previous 4 years. The Complainant rejected this and asserted that he had considerably less than 183 days in that period. As per the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” The recoupment was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages.
Findings and Conclusions:
2)CA 24434-001 I find that he deductions were implemented between 12th January 2018 and February 2019, I find that part of the deductions took place within the time limit allowed so I have decided that I have jurisdiction to deal with it. I find that this was in respect of a deduction based on 2nd May 2016, which was a Bank Holiday. I note that it the practice of the Respondent to treat a Bank Holiday as a sick day if the day is medically certified, which was in this case. I find that there was an overpayment for that amount and the recoupment of that amount was in respect of an overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. 3) CA 25229-001 I find that there was an overpayment as the Complainant had exceeded 183 days in the previous four years. I note that the Complainant had argued that he did not exceed 183 days as he had excluded Saturdays and Sundays from his calculations. However, I refer to the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” I find that there was an overpayment and the recoupment was in respect of that overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. 4) CA 25229-002 I find that there was an overpayment as the Complainant had exceeded 183 days in the previous four years. I note that the Complainant had argued that he did not exceed 183 days as he had excluded Saturdays and Sundays from his calculations. However, I refer to the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” I find that there was an overpayment and the recoupment was in respect of that overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. 5) CA 25229-00 I find that there was an overpayment as the Complainant had exceeded 183 days in the previous four years. I note that the Complainant had argued that he did not exceed 183 days as he had excluded Saturdays and Sundays from his calculations. However, I refer to the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” I find that there was an overpayment and the recoupment was in respect of that overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. 6) CA 25229-004 I find that there was an overpayment as the Complainant had exceeded 183 days in the previous four years. I note that the Complainant had argued that he did not exceed 183 days as he had excluded Saturdays and Sundays from his calculations. However, I refer to the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” I find that there was an overpayment and the recoupment was in respect of that overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. 7) CA 25229-005 I find that there was an overpayment as the Complainant had exceeded 183 days in the previous four years. I note that the Complainant had argued that he did not exceed 183 days as he had excluded Saturdays and Sundays from his calculations. However, I refer to the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” I find that there was an overpayment and the recoupment was in respect of that overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. 8) CA 25229-006 I find that there was an overpayment as the Complainant had exceeded 183 days in the previous four years. I note that the Complainant had argued that he did not exceed 183 days as he had excluded Saturdays and Sundays from his calculations. However, I refer to the provisions of the S.I. 124/2014 Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 it states in Sec 2 (3) “For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in these Regulations to a day of sick leave includes a reference to a Saturday or Sunday.” I find that there was an overpayment and the recoupment was in respect of that overpayment and is thus not covered by the Payment of Wages Act. Sec 5 “Nothing in this section applies to: (5) a) i) I)” “any overpayment of wages. I find that this part of the claim fails. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the above stated reasons, I have decided that these claims are not well founded and so they fail.
|
Dated: 25th April 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Illegal deductions from wages |