Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Help Desk Operator

A Transport Business

Representatives

 Self

Did not attend 

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-00031772-001

23/10/2019

The Complainant was employed as a Help Desk Operator by the Respondent from 22nd May 2019 until he resigned on 12th June 2019. He submitted that he had worked 90 hours between 1st June 2019 and his final day of work on 12th June 2019 for which he was not paid. He submitted that the non-payment of these wages constituted an unlawful deduction under the Payment of Wages Act and sought a finding that the payment should rightfully have been paid.

The Complainant submitted that he was employed by the Respondent as a Help Desk Operator from 22nd May 2019 until 12th June 2019. He submitted that he resigned his position without notice on that date. He submitted that he did so as the hours of work were unreasonable, and the Respondent continued to expect his attendance for excessive hours despite the fact that he had highlighted his concern about the working hours. He submitted that he had worked 90 hours between 1st June 2019 and 12th June 2019. He submitted that he had expected to receive payment for these hours in July (as he was paid in arrears) but that none was received.   He advised that he did receive a pay slip for that period so when he realised that payment had not been made into to his bank account he made contact with the Respondent. He submitted that the Respondent advised him that he would not be getting any payment as he did not deserve payment.   He submitted that the Respondent told him his mistakes cost more than his wages and this was the reason for the non-payment. The Complainant confirmed that his agreed rate of pay was €1600 gross pay per month based on a 40 - hour week. The Complainant advised that he had not received a written contract.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing nor was any written submission received.

I note that Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 states that “an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive payment from an employee) unless – (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment or (c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.”

Section 5(2) of the Act also states that “an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of – (a)an act or omission of the employee,….. unless – (i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee , and (ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of wages of the employee), and (iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with – (i) in the case of the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing a copy thereof, (ii) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term, and (iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing   of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and (v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for the loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage”.

The Complainant submitted that he was never provided with a written contract, that he was unaware of the specific reason why deductions were made, that he had not consented to the deductions, that his pay slip did not reflect that these deductions were made and that he never received any written prior notice of the Respondents intention to deduct monies from his wages.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing and no explanation for the non-attendance was received.   I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is well-founded.  

I have concluded that this complaint is well founded and so I decide accordingly. It is also my decision that the Respondent should pay wages for 90 hours work to the Complainant.

Payment of wages, unlawful deduction