Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Security officer

Security company

Representatives

Self -represented

Respondent director

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-00029405-001

02/07/2019

The complainant worked with the respondent from July 2017 – March 2019 as a security officer. He earns €2000 a month and works 48 .5 hours a week.

He states that in contravention of the Act of 1991 he was wrongfully deducted the sum of €2277.88 from his wages on the 5 March 2019. He states that he has not received any holiday pay for the period 2017- 19.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 2/7/2019.

The complainant worked with the respondent from 30 July 2017- 23 July 2019.

He agreed that his pay slip for 28 March 2019 shows that he was paid the ERO hourly rate of €11.35 for 20 hours worked that month.

When asked to explain how he arrived at the sum of €2278 having been wrongfully deducted from him, he stated that he had 2 PPS numbers and that this made him suspicious as to what was actually owed to him. There was a delay in making payment for annual leave to him. Adding to his suspicion was the fact that he believed his former representative has sent in incorrect information to the WRC.

The complainant stated finally that he could not identify what amount of wages and paid leave entitlements had been paid to him and what was owed to him.

The respondent disputes that there was any wrongful deduction of wages or paid leave entitlements from the complainant.

The respondent states that the complainant’s hours are between 12- 52 and not 48 as claimed in the complaint form.

The respondent states that the complainant supplied incomplete or incorrect information when applying for a PPS number and hence the 2 numbers.

The respondent submitted a pay slip dated 28 March 2019 identifying a payment of €227 for 20 hours worked in March, plus €2435 gross for 214.56 hours of annual leave owed to the complainant which equals €11.35 an hour. His standard working hours are 20 a week.

He was paid a further €682 in September 2019.

The respondent maintains that there are no outstanding payments due to the complainant

I am required to establish if the respondent wrongfully deducted wages as claimed by the complainant and in contravention of the act of 1991.

The complainant was initially unsure about his rate of pay but on being presented at the hearing with details of what had been paid to him and evidenced in a pay slip dated the 28/3/2019, stated that the amounts paid to him could be the correct amounts. He provided no pay slips demonstrating any wrongful deduction. He was unable to identify the amount of any wrongful deduction which may have been made. He was unable to explain the basis of his complaint in the sense of how much was properly payable, how much was deducted and when. He presented no evidence as to the amount of leave taken in which leave year and how much was owing in respect of each year.

His oral evidence indicated that the driving force for the complainant was the existence of 2 PPS numbers, and how this created uncertainty for him about whether he may have been underpaid. For example, he believes a second p45 might exist another with a record of income earned.

I do not find that the complainant made out his case.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded

Complaint not made out.