ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023989
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A retail assistant | A retail chain |
Representatives | Self. | Company Management. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00030591-001 | 01/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant is a retail assistant employed by the Respondent since 13/10/2014. She works 20 hours per week. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 01/09/2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant disagrees with the Respondent when they claim that she has been paid too much during a period of absence. The Respondent’s lack of communication and follow-up have exacerbated the situation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent has made efforts to explain the method of operating their payroll/ salary system to the Complainant. The Respondent claim that what they have done is correct. There is a level of acceptance that mistakes were made, these have now been rectified and as a gesture of goodwill have reduced the outstanding amount by a substantial amount. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent’s wage / salary system is quite complex. The group head of payroll attended the hearing and explained how the system operates. The Complainant was absent from work after being injured in a road traffic accident and mistakes were made in computing how much wages should be paid to her and this was further complicated by paying her holiday entitlement when she was unfit for work and should not have been paid for holidays. The Complainant via her complaint form cannot understand how she has got into a position where she has been overpaid and this has been frustrated by local management who were unable to explain things to her. The Group Head of Payroll has undertaken to meet with the Complainant and fully explain everything to her. On this basis I find that the complaint is not well found and accept that the Respondent is correctly operating what appears to be a very complex system. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As outlined above. |
Dated: 12th November, 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
|