Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Administrator

University

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-00028110-001

01/05/2019

The Complainant has submitted a complaint disputing the manner in which an overpayment of wages was deducted by the Respondent.

The Complainant submits that in December 2018 her monthly gross salary was reduced from €1,249 to €568.26 due to an issue relating to her line manager not submitting the Complainant’s medical certificates to HR on time even though the Complainant had submitted them to her line manager in good time.

The Complainant submits that the deduction was made without giving her prior knowledge of the amount of the deduction even though she had requested to be informed beforehand if any deductions were to be made so that she could make the necessary financial adjustments before Christmas.

The Complainant submits that the salary reduction left her in financial distress at the most vulnerable time of the year.

The Complainant submits that she was not given the opportunity to come to an arrangement with regard to the manner of the deduction.

The Respondent submits as follows:

The Complainant has been working reduced hours for the past number of years due to medical grounds. This has been facilitated by the Respondent to allow the Complainant a phased return to work and afford her reasonable accommodation of 3 days per week and submitting medical certificates or availing of annual leave for the other 2 days.

In September 2018 the Complainant was informed that she had 10 days at full pay sick leave remaining, and following that her sick leave entitlement would reduce to half pay as per the Public Service Sick Pay Scheme.

In order to ensure timely receipt of medical certificates and avoid any overpayment or underpayment, the Director of Human Resources wrote to the Complainant in September 2018 advising that medical certificates should be scanned or delivered by registered post to the HR Department. Unfortunately, the Complainant continued to submit medical certificates only to her line manager.

In October 2018 the Complainant’s line manager went on sick leave. During that period the Complainant continued to submit medical certificates to her line manager. However, in the line manager’s absence the medical certificates were not forwarded to the HR Department.

In November 2018 the HR staff member who manages sick leave became aware that no medical certificates were received and immediately contacted the Complainant to advise that HR had not being receiving any medical certificates. As the Complainant’s line manager remained on sick leave during this period the Complainant was again asked to submit medical certificates to HR.

The Complainant was informed on the 10th December 2018 that HR’s calculations of her sick leave record would be based on the assumption that she had submitted medical certificates for two days covering the period from the 15th October 2018 to that date.

The Complainant provided a response on the 17th December confirming this with the exception of one day which was a public holiday.

Given that the Complainant had exhausted her full pay sick leave entitlement in October 2018, the salary for the December period reflected the sick leave period for November and the amended record for October.

Any deduction made to the Complainant's salary in December was in regard to an overpayment of wages as a result of a delay in medical certificates being submitted. This would not have arisen if the Complainant had undertaken to submit her medical certificates to HR as advised in September 2018.

Under new pay modernisation regulations issued by the Revenue Commissioners, any overpayment must be recouped in the current tax year. In the past any overpayment could be paid off by arrangement over an agreed period.   This change was advised to all staff on the 21st December 2018. Given that these changes were being introduced on the 1st January 2019 no overpayments could be carried forward.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 serves to regulate certain deductions made and payments received by employers. Sections 5(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Act places a number of restrictions on employers in relation to such deductions or payments with regard to the authority for making the deduction, the fairness and reasonableness of the deduction and the manner in which the deduction is to be notified to the employee.

Section 5(5) of the Act, however, provides that nothing in the preceding sections shall apply to the following :

“( a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

(II) any overpayment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and

(ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment,”

Effectively, Section 5(5) provides that an employer may make a deduction from the wages of an employee where the purpose of the deduction is the repayment to the employer of the overpayment of wages to an employee without any regard to the restrictions set out in Sections 5(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Act.

Accordingly, I find that the actions of the Respondent in the herein case comply with the provisions of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I find, therefore, that this complaint is not well founded.

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Overpayment of wages