Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Self

Aoife McDonnell IBEC

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-00035957-001

30/04/2020

The Complainant started with the Respondent on 4 February 2020. His agreed salary was € 2,166.00 per month. The Complainant stated that the company told him they hadn’t paid him because they were trying to help him, so he would not have to pay emergency tax. He told them that he needed the money because he had to pay his rent. He set that out in his e-mails. He was entitled to be paid his full monthly contractual amount. He did give the Respondent his bank details. He put the information under door of the Office. He was waiting for his PPS no. to arrive. He had applied for it.

When the Respondent refused to pay him, he had no option but to return to Poland as he had no way of financing himself here in Ireland. He had rent to pay and with no income he couldn’t pay it.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on a full-time contract of employment on 4 February 2020, as a Night Front Office Supervisor. The Complainants contract entitled him to receive a yearly salary of €26,000 which includes a Sunday premium. The Complainant resigned from his role on 28 February 2020 and did not provide the Respondent with any notice prior to this resignation

On Wednesday 29 January 2020 the Complainant received an email from HR requesting that he pass on a copy of his bank statement and PPS number prior to his start date. The Complainant acknowledged receipt of the request.

He started on 4 February 2020. He was brought through a thorough orientation training schedule, which included an overview of this terms and conditions, the probationary period, resignation, discipline and grievances policy and procedures.

On 10 February, the Complainant attended a meeting with the HR Manager and the Front Office Manager where he was given constructive feedback on his performance, his attitude, and the manner in which he speaks to his colleagues On 25 February, the Complainant attended a probationary review with the two aforementioned managers . During the meeting, concerns were raised in relation to the Complainants tendency to underperform. The Complainant was made aware of the areas where he needed to improve, and he agreed with the constructive criticism during the meeting. It was noted that failure to perform could potentially lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, in line with the company policy. He was reminded to furnish the Respondent with is PPS no. and bank details. The Complainant advised that he had applied for PPS number, and would provide it as soon as possible.

The payroll was processed that evening to ensure that the employees would be paid by the end of the month. Payroll had not received confirmation of the Complainants details up to this point.

On 26 February, the Complainant was reminded again to send his PPS no. and bank details. The Complainant then left a generic copy of some bank details under the door of the HR office. The Respondent was concerned as this did not look like an official document, there was no name or address attached to confirm who owned the account or which bank the account was from.

On 27 February, the Complainant informed the respondent that he didn’t have his PPS no. yet.

On 28 February the Complainant was emailed a payslip which indicated that a gross amount of €1,371.79 and a net amount of €713,33 would be paid to him by “cheque”. On this same day, the Complainant was issued with a personal PIN for viewing electronic payslips via email. He responded to this email asking for confirmation as to when he would receive his payslip, and when he would be paid. This had already been covered with the Complainant on several occasions.

The Respondent responded to the Complainants email at 19:49. To explained that it had not received the Complainants PPS number, or confirmation of his bank account details and so the payment had not yet been processed.

The Complainant received a payslip, which noted that he would be paid a gross figure of €1371.79, which would amount to €713.33 net. The system had indicated that the Complainant would be taxed at a higher rate, as he had not provided a PPS number. The Respondent did not process this payment as the Company hoped that the Complainant would provide the requested information so that he could be taxed appropriately.

The Complainant responded noting that he had not received his PPS number as it was in the post, and that he had slipped the bank details under the door of the HR office. The Complainant also questioned the figures which had been outlined in the payslip, as he was unhappy with the deductions which, the payslip indicated were being made for tax purposes.

At 21:33 the Complainant sent an email to all the managers at the Respondent Hotel where he outlined that he will:

“only be taking home a nett pay of € 700 despite being on a monthly supervisor salary that the company is contractually obligated to pay [which] has forced me into resigning my role with immediate effect. It's one thing trying to fire me for being me; it's another completely to not follow through on your legal obligations to your employees.   I'll be coming in on Monday to turn in all company related gear and collect the salary that I'm owed for the month”.

On 2 March, the Complainant stormed into the HR office demanding pay immediately, complaining that the amount on the payslip did not correspond to the amount promised. His manner was intimidating and aggressive and he was asked to leave.

The Respondent emailed the Complainant to inform him that his email had been received and that two managers would meet with him at 11am the following morning to discuss and resolve the issue at hand.

The Complainant responded copying all the managers on the email, once again. He stated:

“given that I've been forced to return to Poland after becoming de facto homeless in Ireland due to my temporary housing ending while not being able to pay rent on the new room I had put a safety deposit on due to a lack of salary payment from the XXX; I'm not going to be able to come to the meeting today… I expect the funds for the month to go into the KBC account that I had given to H.R.”

He then proceeded to demand that he be paid, whilst still failing to acknowledge that he had not provided the information as was required of him.   The Complainant then proceeded to argue about the figure which had been processed as tax (it was processed in this manner due to the lack of PPS number), but the demands continued:

“As such; I'd like a total of 2,631 Euros (1,881.00 + 750.00) to be paid into my KBC account, which I've provided the details of to H.R. already, to cover the work done and damages suffered over the last month. I feel that two weeks is more than an adequate amount of time for the transfer to be made.”

The emailed continued:

“Should you decide that you don't feel that this is a fair number or just ignore my request to be paid what I am due; I will be forced to file a claim with the Workplace Relations Commission … I will also email all of the General Managers of the XXX hotel brand in Ireland …I will email all of the General Managers of 4 and 5 star hotels in the Dublin area…After that; I will email all of these fine individuals [link to Respondent Group Contacts]…after that I will report this job on Glassdoor, TripAdvisor, Jobs.ie, IrishJobs.ie … then I will contact the local newspapers in Ireland …as well as Poland in an effort to make up the deficit as well as the local solicitor firms… Luckily; as I find myself unemployed at the moment; free time to pursue this as long as I have to isn't an issue for me… I'll start to email the General Managers as stated above on the 18th of March, 2020 and it won't be just the employment titles that I'll be using but full names of everyone involved so that no mistakes are made as to exactly who was responsible for what”

On 4 March, the Respondent responded to the Complainant’s email with the following:

“The pay detailed on your payslip is your net pay. Your status of tax with revenue is currently emergency tax as without a PPSN all earnings is taxed at high tax rate & all has full rate USC and PRSI applied….The hotel has not advised you that payment will be withheld from you….You will be paid all hours worked in line with your contract however what we do require from you in order to process final payment & terminate your employment is the following: a PPSN number & your bank account on an official document from KBC.

Once we have received the required details requested, we can process all final monies owed to you including any annual leave owed.

I trust you will provide us with the required documents at your earliest convenience in order for the respondent to process outstanding earnings to you. Wishing you all the best for the future.”

The respondent contacted the Office of the Irish Revenue Commissioners for more information about how to process the Complainants wage. It was informed that the Respondent could process the payment by typing the date of birth of the Complainant into the box which required a PPS number.

On 20 March, a payment of €856.34 paid net of deductions was processed into the Complainants KBC bank account using the method which was recommended by the Revenue.

The Respondent then emailed the Complainant explaining:

“In order to best facilitate you, we have contacted the Irish revenue commissioner & In this circumstance they will allow for us to process your payment without a PPSN.

All outstanding monies owed to you has been processed to the account provided including annual leave accrued. As previously explained all income will be taxed at the high rate. All future dealings should be with the Revenue Commissioners”

The Complainant responded stating

“ I have to regretfully inform you that I will be pursuing this further with the Workplace Relations Commission as I still don't find the gross amount to be in line with what was agreed contractually (26,000/12 is 2,166.66; not 1,755.89) and the issue of damages caused by the lack of payment within the proper timeframe (the 750.00 Euro security deposit lost) hasn't been addressed at all”

On April 24, the Complainant e-mailed asking whether he had been laid off, and if he would be entitled to the Pandemic Unemployment Payment. He clearly was not as he had resigned prior to that.

The Respondent refutes the claim under the Payment of Wages Act in its entirety as no unlawful deduction of wages has occurred in line with the remuneration stated in the Complainant’s contract.

The Complainant’s agreed monthly salary was € 2,166.00. He commenced work on 4 February 2020 and only worked 16 days before he resigned his position. He failed to provide the Respondent with his PPS number which is a normal requirement to process payments in this jurisdiction. The Revenue Commissioners gave the Respondent assistance in relation to how they could process the payment in the absence of a PPS number. Once they had that information they processed the Complainant payment for the 16 days he worked together with his holiday entitlements of 10.96 hours. The payment was subject to emergency tax. It is open to the Complainant to apply to Revenue to have his emergency tax reimbursed to him once he is in possession of his PPSN.

Section 5.(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any 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.

I am satisfied that the Complainant has been paid in full for the 16 days that he worked for the Respondent and that the deductions made were tax related and of the type envisaged by Section 5 (1)(a).

The complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

The complaint fails.