Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Receptionist

Facility Management Solutions Provider

Representatives

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-00030287-002

15/08/2019

The Complainant started her employment with the Respondent on 25th March 2019 and she was dismissed on 5th April 2019.

She submitted her claim to the WRC on 15th August 2019 claiming that the Respondent has not paid her or paid her less than the amount due to her on 30th April 2019.

Additional submissions were received from the parties post-hearing on 5th, 8th, 13th and 18th September 2019.

In the WRC referral form the Complainant alleges that the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from her wages in respect of a photo badge (€9.75), that the Respondent did not pay her her accrued annual leave (approximately €79) and that the Respondent did not pay her the sum of €78.35 in respect of her wages.

At the hearing the Complainant confirmed that, having reviewed the final payslip she is satisfied that the accrued annual leave was paid to her.

However, the Complainant noted that she would have worked overtime she had not been paid for. She claimed that the “handover” time between shifts was not included in her timesheets.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was paid €557.69 gross weekly based on a 40-hour week.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was paid for 32 hours work in her final week. Deduction of 2.5 hours was made in the final pay in respect of the overpayment due to time claimed but not worked. The Complainant did not start work until 10am on 25th March 2019 (2 hours), 0.5 hour was deducted in respect of the Complainant leaving earlier on Friday 29th March 2019. The Complainant was late on Tuesday 2nd April, this however was offset against the meeting held on 4th April 2019.

The Respondent submits that damaged property belonging to its Client (security badge) was received by post from the Complainant. As a result of the damage a new swipe card had to be made in order to be fully deactivated at expense to the Respondent. The Complainant was advised prior to this that there would be a charge of €9.75 as per the contract of employment should the property be returned damaged. This was deducted from the final pay.

The Respondent exhibited a copy of the Complainant’s contract, which stipulates as follows:

‘[The Respondent] shall be entitled to deduct from your remuneration any monies owed by you to [the Respondent] including but not limited to any outstanding loans, advances, course fees, the cost of repairing or recovering any damage or loss of Company property caused by you and any excess holiday pay.’

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not required to work overtime. The Respondent exhibited an email from the Client confirming that the Client did not request the Complainant to work overtime. The Respondent also presented a letter to the Complainant explaining that the overtime was not never requested by the Manager, Ms C and therefore the Complainant was asked to provide the name of the person who requested her to work overtime and details of same.

When submitting her original complaint under this reference, the Complainant detailed three elements to the claim. The first related to the non-payment of the amount of €78.35 in respect of her wages. The second element of the claim related to the non-payment of €79 in respect of accrued annual leave and the third related to the Respondent allegedly making an unlawful deduction of €9.75 from her final pay.

In respect of the annual leave payment, I find that at the hearing the Complainant conceded that it was, in fact, paid to her in the final pay as per payslip.

In respect of the deduction of €9.75 I find that the Complainant’s contract of employment states clearly as follows:

“14. Return of Property Upon termination of your employment for whatever reason, you will be required to return without delay to [the Respondent] all its property of every nature and description including but not limited to: personal computers, software, manuals, identity cards and all other items belonging to or issued to you by or on behalf of [the Respondent] in the course of or in connection with your work.”

“5. Remuneration, Benefits and deductions… 5.3 [the Respondent] shall be entitled to deduct from your remuneration any monies owed by you to [the Respondent] including but not limited to any outstanding loans, advances, course fees, the cost of repairing or recovering any damage or loss of Company property caused by you and any excess of holiday pay.”

I find that the Complainant signed the contract of employment on 6th March 2019 and therefore consented to such deductions as outlined above.

I note that in the letter dated 8th April 2019 the Respondent notified the Complainant in writing of the particulars of the damage to the Respondent’s property and the amount of the deduction.

In respect of the alleged overtime, I note that the Complainant was paid as per timesheets completed by her. She supplied the Respondent with timesheets for the week starting on 1st April 2019 indicating that she was required to work outside her normal rostered hours. The Client confirmed to the Respondent that it did not request the Complainant to work overtime as it has always had an adequate cover. Moreover, the text messages between the Complainant and Ms J of the Client confirm that, that the Complainant was, in fact, late for work on 2nd April 2019. The Complainant did not dispute that. Her timesheet, however, shows that she started 15 minutes earlier than required on that day. The Complainant was requested by the Respondent to provide more details in respect of the person who requested her to work overtime but it appears that the Complainant did not do so. Having considered the parties’ evidence in regard to the matter and having reviewed the correspondence and text communication available to me I find the Respondent’s evidence more cogent. I, therefore, find that the Complainant was not required to work overtime.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is not well founded.

Deduction- annual leave- overtime