Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Labourer

A Builder

Representatives

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-00029716-001

15/07/2019

The complainant has submitted a claim against the respondent in respect of a failure to pay him wages due to him.   This claim was submitted on the 15th of July 2019 and I proceeded to a hearing of this matter on the 30th of September 2019.

The complainant submits that

He worked for the respondent from 26th of March 2019 to 21st of June 2019,

he was paid €618 for his final weeks work in the form of a cheque which he lodged to his account on 21st of June 2019,

On 24th of June the bank advised him that the cheque had been stopped and that he was liable to pay bank charges on the transaction.

The respondent submits that

He paid the complainant a cheque for work done to the amount of €618 on 21st of June 2019,

he stopped the cheque a few days later as the complainant had quit his job without giving the respondent any notice.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act regulates the deductions permissible to an employee’s pay. This is justiciable before an adjudication officer. Section 5(6) provides:

“(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any 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.”

The question is whether the €618 was “properly payable” to the complainant so that the non-payment of this amount constituted a deduction within the ambit of section 5.

In Sullivan v Department of Education [1998] E.L.R. 217, the EAT held that a deduction includes any amount payable to an employee, i.e. sums to which an employee is properly entitled. The relevant part of the decision states:

There is no specific definition of a deduction in the Act; guidance can be taken from the definition of ‘wages’ in section 1 of the Act: ‘Any sums payable to the employee in connection with his employment, including: …’

We consider the word ‘payable’ to be significant. Whereby [the employer] contended that there is no deduction where an employee continues to receive the same amount (and the same composition) of wages from the outset, the Tribunal considers that if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act. We take ‘payable’ to mean properly payable. The definition of ‘wages’ goes on to give examples of types of payments which can amount to ‘wages’ and states that the payments can amount to wages ‘where payable under [his] contract of employment or otherwise…’. Although in our view it is not simply a matter of what might have been agreed or arranged or indeed paid from the outset, but in the view of the Tribunal, all sums to which an employee is properly entitled.”

The complainant advised the hearing that he had worked for the respondent on a casual basis from March 2019 to 21st of June 2019.   He stated that he had been paid his wages of €618 on the 21st or 22nd of June and had lodged it to his account that day.   The complainant stated that while the money was in his account a bill had been paid out of it. The complainant told the hearing that he received a call from the bank the following Thursday stating that the cheque had been stopped and that the complainant was responsible for bank charges associated with this.

The respondent advised the hearing that he had cancelled the cheque as the complainant had let him down by not showing up for work on Monday which he notified him by text late on Sunday night. He told the hearing that the complainant had then texted him the following night to say he wouldn’t be back to work as he had found a better job.   The respondent stated that he was annoyed and let down as he had asked the complainant from the start to give him a week’s notice if he was leaving so he would have time to find someone else.

The complainant stated that the work was casual and that he had worked for the respondent before when work was available and was let go without notice when work ran out.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant had earned the €618 and that it was his wages for the previous week and also included one day of holiday pay which was also due to the complainant. The respondent agreed that the complainant had earned the amount and was entitled to it for work carried out.  

Applying the statutory provisions and the Sullivan decision, I am satisfied that the wages claimed were properly payable to the complainant for work carried out the previous week and included one day’s holiday pay.   Thus, I am satisfied that this amounts to an unlawful deduction within the ambit of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act and that this claim is well founded.

I declare this claim to be well founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant €618 in respect of the unlawful deduction plus €100 in compensation.