ADJ-00004194

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Brewer

A Brewery

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00006063-001

20/07/2016

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a brewer from the 9th November 2015 until the 3rd June 2106. He worked 40 hours per week and was paid €1,30.76 gross every 2 weeks.   He is claiming that he was not paid wages contrary to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The complainant stated that despite getting pay slips from his employer, the money was not always lodged to his bank or it was lodged late or sometimes a portion of his wages was lodged to his bank account and he was given the rest in cash at a later date.  He said that he was always owed the previous wages by the time the next pay day came along. He asked the respondent to pay him on time, but that never happened. From the fortnight ending on the 22nd April 2016, he was not paid his wages up until he left the employment on the 3rd June 2016. He said that he is owed a total of 8 weeks wages. In response to the respondent’s claim that he took too many days off, and that he is not owed any wages, he said that there were many reasons for taking days off including being not allowed to brew by revenue, the respondent locked the door of the brewery and prevented him from doing his job, on many occasions the ingredients were not provided and he couldn’t work and on some occasions, he did not come to work, after repeated requests to the respondent, seeking his wages, were ignored.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

In a letter to the WRC dated the 19th August 2016. The respondent said that when the complainant left the employment it was discovered he had not signed an employment or confidentiality agreement, but the complainant refused to sign same when asked to do so after he left the employment. Furthermore, the complainant had taken paid time off and in fact he was overpaid.

The Payment of Wages Act provides at Section 5.—(1) “An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) ….”.   In O’Sullivan v Department of Education [1998} E.L.R. the EAT held that a deduction includes any amount payable to an employee. It stated: “the Tribunal considers that if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act. We take ‘payable’ to mean properly payable. The definition of ‘wages’ goes on to give examples of types of payments which can amount to ‘wages’ and states that the payments can amount to wages ‘whether payable under [his] contract of employment or otherwise ….’ Although in our view it is not simply a matter of what may have been agreed or arranged or indeed paid from the outset but, in the view of the Tribunal, all sums to which an employee is properly entitled.”

In evidence, the complainant submitted a series of text messages he exchanged with the respondent over the payment of his wages and an email from the respondent confirming that he was owed outstanding wages. The respondent went on to say he would pay the outstanding wages to the complainant when he signed the employment documentation and the confidentiality agreement. Having reviewed all the evidence, I am satisfied that the complainant was not paid his wages for the last 8 weeks of his employment. Therefore, I find that the complaint is well founded. I award the complainant compensation €4,087.24 nett which represent 8 weeks wages.

I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded. I order the respondent to pay the complainant redress in the amount of €4087.24 nett

Payment of Wages,