ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024890
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sergiusz Griszan | Independent Express Cargo Limited |
Representatives | none | Eoin Haverty Ibec, Grace McCarron |
Complaint:
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-00031753-001 | 16/10/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant is employed as a Driver since 7th December 2017. He is paid €577.00 net per week. He has claimed that his employer has made an illegal deduction from his wages. The Respondent employer has rejected this claim. |
The Claim ADJ 24881 was a duplicate.
Preliminary Point Time limit
Respondent
The Respondent stated that two parts of this claim is out of time. The fist part claims that a deduction of €250 was made on 22nd February 2018 and the second a deduction of €250 on 30th August 2018. They stated that as per Sec 6 of the Payment of Wages Act these claims are outside, not just the six months’ time limit allowed but in fact twelve months if an extension was granted.
Complainant
The Complainant accepts that the first two claims referred to above were made outside of the time limits allowed.
Decision
I find that the claim was presented to the Commission on 16th October 2019. Therefore, the period that may be investigated is 17th April 2019 to 16th October 2019 or in the event of an extension of six months being granted the period would be 17th October 2018 to 16th October 2019.
I find that the two claims referred to above relate to alleged infractions dated 22nd February 2018 and 30th August 2018.
I have decided, according to Sec 6 of this Act that the two claims referred to above are out of time
The other claims for an alleged deduction of €390 are in time.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that the Respondent employer made deductions of €390 for two incidents between 1st August 2019 and 19th September 2019. These were for alleged damage done to another vehicle, not his. He accepts that damage was done to another vehicle, a broken back red light and a mirror. The Respondent deducted €390 which was not appropriate to the alleged damage caused by him. He stated that the contract of employment refers to his own vehicle, not any one else’s. He also stated that the maximum deduction should be €250 for damages to your own vehicle. He referred to page 41 of the Staff Handbook and his appendix 3 in support of his case. The deduction of €390 was an illegal deduction. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that there were two incidents involved, one on 24th July 2019 where a deduction of €140 was made and one on 26th April 2019 for €250, this totalled €390. Both incidents involved his own vehicle and another one. The Respondent’s finance department assessed the damage and applied the deduction. They stated that this deduction is provided for in his contract of employment, it states that the driver is liable for the first €250 of damage done to the vehicle. The contract does not differentiate between the drivers own vehicle or another vehicle involved. They also stated that there is custom and practice in this company to make these deductions and they have been applied, details available. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that Section 5 (1) of the Act provides, “an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages on 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, (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.
I find that in this case the Respondent is relying upon Sec 5 (1) (b). I find that the contract of employment states that the driver is liable for the first €250 of damage done to the vehicle. I find that the contract does not define which vehicle it refers to, the Complainant alleges that it refers to the driver’s vehicle and not another vehicle that may be involved in an accident. I find that I accept the Respondent’s position. I also note that it is the custom and practice in the company to apply such deductions up to a maximum of €250 per incident. In this case I find that the maximum limit was applied and the two incidents of €140 and €250 totalled €390. I find that this deduction was authorised by Sec 5 (1) (b) of this Act and this was not an illegal; deduction. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the above stated reasons, I have decided that this claim was not well founded and so it fails.
|
Dated: 17th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Alleged illegal deduction from wages for damage done to a vehicle |