Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{A Service Engineer}

{A Service Company}

Representatives

N/A 

N/A 

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-00032493-001

26/11/2019

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from 26th November 2018 to 22nd November 2019.

The Complainant was employed as a Service Engineer. He was approached by the owner to train to drive a new truck for the Company. He says he was told the Company will pay for all the training. He subsequently had to leave his job as he needed more flexibility and resigned. His last day of work was on 22nd November 2019. He was asked to leave all company items at work on 21st November 2019 and given a lift home. He was told he would be paid for 22nd November 2019 and did not need to work this day. On Friday 22nd November 2019 he did not receive his wages into his bank account.

When he contacted the Company they told him there were deductions for the driving course and holidays owed. He was employed as a Service Engineer and is not required to be a truck driver. He never agreed to the deductions for training. This is why the Company arranged that he would not be working on Friday 22nd November 2019.

The Complainant worked with the Respondent from 26th November 2018 to 22nd November 2019. The Respondent facilitated the Complainant with additional holidays even though these were not accrued, and he agreed he would make these up. He was over paid 4.5 days holidays when he left the Company.

In May 2019 the Respondent acquired a new truck for a project and sought a number of Field Service engineers to take driving lessons for a C licence in order to drive the truck. This was for the same engineer position the only difference being the field engineers would drive the truck not a van. The Company paid for all expenses of €1,177. A number of engineers agreed to train, and a number refused. There was no pressure put on anyone.

The Respondent relies on clause 20 in the Complainant’s contract of employment which provides:

“Training

Should we pay for a specialised course specific to you and you should leave within 12 months, you will be liable for the cost of that course. This does not apply if your employment is terminated”.

The Complainant requested a change to his working hours in October 2019 to mind his baby while his Partner is at work, and unfortunately the Company were not able to accommodate this due to early starts on site. The Complainant only gave 1 weeks’ notice instead of two weeks. The Company agreed to let him finish week of 22nd November 2019 and dropped him home on Thursday as there was no one to give him a lift home the following day. The Complainant is aware that he is required to pay back monies invested in his training if he leaves within 12 months.

I have heard and carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Complainant claims the Respondent was not authorised to deduct a payment for his training and that this requires specific consent in advance from him. He accepts 4.5 days holidays overpaid are repayable to the Respondent.

The Complainant’s contract of employment at clause 20 clearly authorises the Respondent to deduct costs of training if the staff member leaves within 12 months of training. The Complainant received training in May 2019 and in November 2019 resigned. The Complainant signed a contract of employment with the Respondent on 26th November 2018 and is aware of the terms in accordance with S5 (1) (b) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent has produced receipts evidencing the training costs paid of €1177.00.

Pursuant to S6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 I find the complaint is not well founded.

The complaint is not well founded.

Training costs, authority to deduct, term in contract of employment authorising deduction