Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ivana  Duran

Infosys BPM

Representatives

  Self- Represented

Robin McKenna, 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-00041402-001

07/11/2020

The Complainant was employed from 19 November 2018 as a Customer Agent. It was her claim that her last day of employment was 9 September 2020 and a deduction was made from her wages to cover the cost of her induction training.

She earned €382 per week and was paid every two weeks.

Her wages were based on 40 hours worked per week.

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.

Both parties were given amble opportunity to set out their case and ask questions of each other at the hearing.

The implications of the Supreme Court Decision of Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 and both parties agreed to proceed. The Respondent submit that this case could be categorised as a misunderstanding and there was unlikely to be a conflict of evidence. The hearing proceeded. 

The Complainant stated that she commenced working for the Respondent on 19 November 2018 and underwent induction training. It was her case that a representative from HR advised her training group that they will only be paid for one working week although she worked two full weeks due to a clause in the contract. The clause she quoted from her contract related to the clawback of the cost up to €366 to support the cost of training should an employee leave the business within the probationary period.

She submitted that she did not miss any day of training but her first pay slip only reflected 40 hours instead of the 80 hours training she undertook. It was her understanding that the Respondent failed to pay her for the additional 40 hours.

The Complainant stated that as she raised the issue with HR and it was denied that she owed her €366. She referred to a named colleague who advised her he did received this payment when he left. The comparator was not present at the hearing nor was any evidence of same presented.

The Respondent noted that the Complainant was originally employed with Eishtec and following a transfer of undertaking her employment was transferred to Infosys BPM on 24 November 2019. She resigned from her position by letter dated 3 September 2020 with her resignation taking effect on 10 September 2020.

On 17 September 2020 the Complainant emailed the HR Business Partner enquiring about her P45 which was responded to. A follow up email on the same day was sent by the Complainant relating of €366 relating to the training claw back and repayment of same. By reply the HR Business Partner clarified that there had been no deduction made and referred to the explanation given at induction about the clawback. The Complainant’s first 3 payslips were attached along with an explanation of the how the payroll runs a week in arrears and on a fortnightly basis. An explanation of each pay period of the three payslips together with the total hours worked. For ease of reference her last two pay slips were also included.

The Complainant sent a third email to the Respondent regarding the clawback which was responded to in detail on 28 September 2020 again explaining the payroll procedure with reference to her first three payslips.

There was no deduction made from the Complainant’s wages either in 2018 or in 2020.

The Respondent explained the payroll procedure again in detail at the hearing.

In response to the allegation the comparator it was submitted that no money was deducted nor was any money refunded for training.

The payment and explanation of the training clawback slide from the Induction Training was presented.

While the Complainant’s claim as set out in her Complaint Form referred to the date of 18 September 2020 as being the date on which she was claims she was paid less than the amount due to her. However, in the narrative of the Complaint Form and at the hearing the Complainant’s case was focused on her first two payslips and the allegation that she was only paid for one of her two weeks training in November 2018. This was confirmed by the Complainant at the hearing. Furthermore, she accepted at the hearing that the deductions from her last payslip of November 2020 were made  in accordance with the statutory deductions.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Commission Act 2015 limits the time period in which a claim can be brought under the Payment of Wages Act 1991:

“(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

This complaint relates back to November 2018. Consequently, I have no jurisdiction to decide on this claim.

The Complainant’ s claim is not well founded.

Payment of Wages Act – Deduction – Not well founded