ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028638
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Store Manager | A Retail Company |
Representatives | In person | Employment Manager |
Complaint(s):
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-00035670-001 | 30/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/11/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 was not paid wages for two days of the last week that he worked for the Respondent in January 2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced work as a store manager for the Respondent on 1 October 2018. His employment ceased on 5 January 2020. In accordance with the terms of his contract the Complainant was paid on a monthly basis on the last day of every month. The Complainant worked on 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th of January 2020 and arising from this he was due to be paid for 5 days (to take account of 1st January being a bank holiday) however he was only paid for 3 days. The Company accepted that he would ordinarily be entitled to be paid for 5 days in January for the days that he worked, however because he was paid early in December (on 20th as opposed to on the last day of the month) he was paid then for two days that he did not work, 30th and 31st December. As a result of this, the Respondent was entitled to correct this overpayment of wages in his December payment, when paying his wages in January. The Complainant contends that he is paid monthly and that he worked the full complement of days in December 2019, for which he was paid properly. He accepts that he did not work on 30th and 31st December however he was not required to as he had already worked the requisite 5 day per week as his contract required for the month of December. The Complainant contends that the company should not be permitted to argue that his wages are paid on a monthly basis and then change that to be on a weekly basis, or to have a rolling month to month reckonable period, when the contract does not permit that. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Company accepts that Complainant would ordinarily be entitled to be paid for 5 days for the work that he did in the first week of January 2020 however because he was paid early in December (on 20th as opposed to on the last day of the month) and that this was to ensure that employees were paid early for Christmas. The Complainant was paid for two days at the end of December for days that he did not work, 30th and 31st December 2019. Therefore, the Respondent was entitled to take account of the overpayment in December when paying his January wages. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent did not furnish a replying statement or submissions to the WRC in advance of the adjudication hearing. During the Adjudication hearing the Respondent confirmed that employees are paid monthly for a 5 day per week and that wages are paid on the last day of each month which reflects the work that was done that month. The exception to this being December when an early payment of wages is made. However, the Respondent did not furnish the Adjudicator with sufficient evidence to prove its defence namely; 1. That the employment contract allows the Respondent to retain wages if there was an over payment the previous month. 2. That the Complainant was paid for 30th and 31st December 2019 and that he did not work on those days. 3. That the Complainant had not already worked a full 5 day per week during the month of December 2019, as he contends The justification or defence that the retention of €311 gross or €155 net for 2 days work is based an overpayment being made to the Complainant in December 2019. This would have been straightforward for the Respondent to prove and to send the WRC either in advance of the hearing or, as a minimum at the Adjudication hearing. However, the Respondent failed to do either. I am not satisfied that the Respondent has evidentially met the complaint brought by the Complainant and in these circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, I find that this complaint is well founded |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For reasons set out above I find this complaint is well founded and I make the following award: Award: €155.00 |
Dated: 20th April 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Deduction of wages - Payment of Wages Act 1991 |