Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Former Employee

An Airport

Representatives

SIPTU

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-00031164-001

27/09/2019

The complaint submits he did not receive 2 weeks arrears of pay that were due to him when he left the respondent’s employment, on retirement. The respondent says he was paid correctly when he left their employment.

The complainant started working for the respondent in 1979 and was paid weekly in arrears. In 1985 he was moved to being paid fortnightly in arrears. In January 2019 the respondent moved staff, who were being paid in advance, to being paid in arrears. The complainant did not accept he was being in advance but received a bridging loan to transition to a change in payment of 2 weeks.

When he retired he was paid up to date and for two weeks in arrears. His claim is that he was already being paid in arrears when the respondent moved everyone’s pay date back two weeks. He was therefore, being paid 4 weeks in arrears and should have received a further 2 weeks pay when he retired; amounting to €2,500, and that non-payment amounts to unlawful deduction under the Payment of Wages Act.

The respondent confirms the complainant started working for them in 1979 and his contract stated he was paid weekly in arrears. They also confirmed that they moved to paying staff fortnightly in 1985. Agreement was reached in 2018 that from 1 January 2019 staff would move to being paid in arrears, including the complainant. When the complainant raised the query that he was already paid in arrears the respondent replied that he was, in fact, currently being paid in advance. They submitted copies of payslips in support of this.

I have to decide if the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the complainant when he retired. The complainant’s 1979 contract is clear; that he was paid weekly in arrears. It is also clear that he was moved to being paid fortnightly in 1985. However, although copies of the agreement were submitted, no evidence was provided which indicated whether there was any change to being paid in arrears or in advance, or whether that was by one week or two weeks. Payslips prior to 1 January 2019 were supplied to show that the complainant was paid in advance. However, I do not find this conclusive.

The 1 January 2019 change meant the complainant’s pay date was put back by 2 weeks.

My conclusion is that no conclusive evidence has been provided, by either party, that the complainant ever moved from being paid one week in arrears, until January 2019. Then his pay date was put back 2 weeks. I therefore find that he should have received a further one week’s pay when he left the respondent’s employment.

I find that, for the reasons given above, the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of one week’s pay; €1,236.05..

Payment of Wages