Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Team leader

Retailer of health products

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-00018447-001

11/04/2018

The respondent at the outset corrected the name of the company. This is reflected in the decision.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 23 October 2017 as a team leader. His complaint form stated that the sum of €1,600 was deducted from his wages on 20/1/2018.

He earned €2,300 gross per fortnight. He worked a 40-hour week.

He resigned 0n 19 January 2018.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 11/4/2018.

The complainant states that he worked 171 hours in the four-week period 19/11-16/12/17, as opposed to his pay slip which incorrectly states that he worked 150 hours. The work could not be completed in a 40-hour week.

                                                                                              This deficit of 21 hours amounts to €295.68.

He states he worked 155 hours in the period from 27 December to 19 January 2018

As opposed to the respondent’s tally of 136 hours.  

                                                                                               This deficit of 19 hours amounts to €267.52.

He is owed 1 weeks’ notice.                                               This amounts to                                  €563.

He is owed 32 hours holiday pay.                                 This amount     to                                €450.56

In the context of an absence of information on pay slips and in the context of sums paid to him but without an explanation, he identifies the above listed amounts totalling €1575 as owing to him.

He then submitted that the respondent paid him

€514 on 19 January

€621 on 26 January

€876 0n 31 January

         Totalling  €2011 for the period 27 December to 19 January.

He asked the payroll section to assist him in calculating what amounts were owed to him. He states he received no assistance. He is unclear about the shortfall and what is owed to him. He is unclear about the amounts which have been paid to him and what they represent.                                                                                                                      He received €389 on 8 February but no pay slip. He did not understand the basis for this payment.

The respondent submits that new personnel in the wages department resulted in errors and lack of detail. They then outsourced their salary payment function to an Irish company at a later point and it took time to assemble all the necessary details and arrange for prompt payments.

They had previously apologised to the complainant for the lack of information which contributed to his then uncertainty about what he was and is owed.

The respondent advises that because of his insistence and against their normal practice they gave him payments in advance of the due dates.

The respondent advises that he was mistakenly paid €168.96 for 16 hours absence on sick leave during the period 22/10-18/11/2017. The respondent does not pay while employees are out on sick leave.

The respondent accepts that an error on the Time and Attendance system led to an underpayment to the complainant in the December salary, paid to him on 22/12/2017. He was paid €2112 for what was recorded as 150 hours basic. He should have been recorded as having worked 152 hours basic,14.5 hours at 1.5 times basic rate and 4 hours at double time. He should have been paid €2,865. So, the underpayment was €753.

The respondent submitted documents and pay slips detailing hours worked by the complainant.

After three trawls in January 2018, and by the end of February 2018, they had ultimately paid the complainant for all hours which he had worked during the course of his employment.

They met him in April, furnished him with pay slips and documents and explained the payments. They advise that a thorough search of all their records revealed that they had in fact overpaid him by €294 .52 but that they were prepared to let it go.

The respondent contacted him over the telephone and explained all the payments to him on the 12 July. Email records submitted in evidence indicate same. They also offered him €500 for any upset caused due to the errors and ‘hitches’ in their payment methods and interrupted salary payments.

Any inaccuracies were down to human error as they were in a period of transition in terms of salary payment mechanisms..

Section 5 (1) of the 1991 Act states

“An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.’

At the hearing the complainant was unsure about the amounts owed to him and on what dates.

The respondent accepts that the salary paid to him on December was down €753 on what was payable to him.

I accept that he was only part- paid on 19 January 2018 the sum of €514 instead of the €1,694. The deduction at that point was €1180.

I have examined the electronic records, the pay slips, the payment records assembled by the respondent. These are based on the clocking in records of the complainant.

I accept the evidence of the respondent that the complainant worked the following hours during his employment with them- the period 23 October 2017 to 19 January 2018 as follows:

447 hours basic = €6723

40.5 hour at 1.5 = €854.55.

11.75 hours at double time =€330.88.

He received 56 hours holiday payment= €337

This, based on the agreed hourly rate of €14.08, should yield him a total of €8,244.                                                        

His pay slips and pay records reveal that for the period 23 October 2017 – 19 January 2018, he was paid the sum of €6,036 by 19 January. January 19 is the date on which the complainant identifies that the wrongful deduction occurred. However, payments made to the complainant on 25 January (€621), 30 January (€876), 7 February (€387), 16 February (€412), when added to the aggregate sum of €6036 paid to him by the 19 January amount to the sum of €8332. This sum of €8332 exceeds the sum of €8244 owed to him based on his hours worked. The respondent has therefore paid the complainant for the aggregate number of hours for which he worked during the period 23 October 2017 – 19 January 2018.

Section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 states

“Where the total amount of wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion ( after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in   accordance with this Act) , or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then. except in so far as the deficiency or non- payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non- payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

I accept that it is very unsettling to be in the dark about salary payments - amounts paid and for which periods and amounts outstanding. However, the evidence submitted at the hearing indicates that the respondent corrected the errors of computation and the deficiency on four successive weeks following the incorrect payment. I am satisfied that within 4 weeks of the 19 January, the respondent corrected the deduction of that date and paid more than what was due in salary to the complainant.

I accept that the respondent’s actions fall within the provisions of section 5(6)(b) of the Act of 1991.

The evidence does not support the complainant’s complaint of a breach of section 5 of the Act of 1991.

I do not find the complaint to be well -founded.

Deduction; attributable to an error of computation.