Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

An Employer

Representatives

Conor O'Gorman IBEC

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-00007167-001

23/09/2016

The complainant is alleging that she was subjected to unlawful deductions from her wages by the respondent which she states is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act. She is also claiming that the respondent did not pay her commission/bonus payments that were due to her.

The complainant states that has been unfit for work due to illness since February 2015. She states that she was left for months without any salary in 2016. After receiving six months full pay and six months half pay, she states that her salary was reduced to nil in February 2016. She submits that despite the fact she has mandatory income protection insurance to protect her income up to 66.67%, this issue was only brought to her attention in February 2016. The complainant states that she immediately sent out her application for income continuous and visited the medical advisors accordingly and her claim was accepted on 6 July 2016. The complainant asserts that during the time she was waiting for her claim to be accepted, her salary was reduced to nil. The complainant contends that while she was told that her income insurance would cover any missed salary and back payments for these months would be awarded, she did not receive same. The insurance company had calculated the awarded sum to be €21,898 based on the information given to it by the respondent. The complainant states that after continually chasing this amount with the respondent, she was informed by the payroll administrator for the respondent on 20 September 2016 that she was misinformed to believe that this amount was to be awarded to herself and this amount is deducted from her salary for the respondent to cover the six months of half payments she received in 2015 and salary she received during the months of April and May (which were awarded to her by mistake). The complainant states that the respondent did not pay any PRSI payments from the awarded sum yet this sum is subject to PAYE as per the income protection scheme.

The complainant maintains that pursuant to section 5 of the Act, she was never informed that any deduction would occur and due to being awarded half pay and income protection and illness benefit, her gross wages appeared far greater than she actually received. She states that this situation has left her tax balance in the negative leaving her owing Revenue a substantial amount.

The complainant is also alleging that she has not been awarded commission/bonus payments that was due to her for work carried out prior to her going on sick leave in February 2015.    

The respondent states that the instant claim was lodged with the WRC on 23 September 2016 and consequently the cognisable period for the instant complaint is 22 March 2016 – 23 September 2016.

The respondent states that in relation to the complainant’s claim that it failed to pay her commission/bonus payment in June 2015, this part of the claim is out of time and therefore statute barred.

In relation to the complainant’s claim alleging unlawful deductions from her wages; the respondent outlines that the complainant’s sick pay was reduced to half pay as per her contract of employment in August 2015. It states that the complainant exhausted her entitlement to sick pay in February 2016. The respondent submits that due to an error, the complainant was put back on full pay instead of being placed on “nil pay” and consequently the complainant received full pay for February, March and April totalling €10,217.77 of an overpayment. The respondent states that the complainant received a total of €9,084.37 for half sick pay for the period August to December 2015. The respondent contends that when the complainant’s application for income continuance was accepted in July 2016, the payment was backdated to August 2015 to cover the period of half pay.

The respondent submits that as the income continuance is 66.67% of pay, the total amount of income continuance paid by the insurer was €9,149.50. The respondent states that it recouped the payment that had already been received by the complainant. The respondent submits that on 28 July 2016, it deducted the balance of the overpayments as per the contract of employment. The respondent states that the complainant’s contract of employment states; “The company is authorised to deduct from your salary any monies owed by you as a result of unauthorised business expenses, overpayments of remuneration, overpayment of holiday or sick pay…”.

In conclusion, the respondent submits that complainant’s claim in relation to commission/bonus payment is time barred and the deductions by the respondent in July 2016 were authorised as per the contract of employment in relation to overpayments.

I find that the complainant’s claim in relation to commission/bonus payment is outside the time limit for lodgement of a complaint and is therefore statute barred.   In this regard, I note that the complainant lodged her claim on 23 September 2016.

In relation to the complainant’s claim that the respondent has breached the Payment of Wages Act by unlawfully deducting payments from her; having carefully examined the evidence, I am satisfied that the complainant received overpayments inadvertently by the respondent and these monies were recouped by the respondent as is authorised pursuant to the complainant’s contract of employment. Therefore, I find that there is no breach by the respondent in relation to the Payment of Wages Act.    

I find that the complainant’s claim in relation to commission/bonus payment is outside the time limit for lodgement of a complaint and is therefore statute barred. In relation to the complainant’s claim that the respondent unlawfully deducted payments from her wages; I am satisfied that the complainant received overpayments inadvertently by the respondent and these monies were recouped by the respondent as is authorised pursuant to the complainant’s contract of employment. In the circumstances therefore, I find that there is no breach by the respondent in relation to the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly, I find the complaint is not well founded.  

Payment of Wages Act