Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Operations Assistant

A Travel Company

Representatives

none 

none 

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-00034800-001

21/02/2020

The complainant was employed as an Operations Assistant with the respondent company. She commenced employment on 30 September 2019 and she resigned from the employment on 16 December 2019. She is making a claim that the respondent unlawfully deducted €800 from her wages.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 30 September 2019. She states that on this date, she participated  in a half day training on induction into the company. She submits that following this induction she began her daily duties with her colleagues instructing her on how to carry out her daily tasks.

During a routine meeting with the HR manager, she was asked how she felt she was transitioning in the company, the complainant states that she voiced her concerns that she received no training  or proper instructions as a whole. On 18 October, the complainant was invited to a meeting with her team leader where she was informed that the company policy was to provide on the job training. The complainant states that she was informed at this meeting if she could not grasp the tasks that perhaps this position was not suited to her.

The complainant submitted her notice and outlined that her last day of employment would be Monday 16 December. On this date, she attended an exit meeting with the HR manager, who informed the complainant that she owed two weeks wages i.e, €800. The complainant states that she was informed that this money related to the recruitment and training which she was given.  The complainant stated that this was unjust and that the training she received would not equate to €800.  

The respondent states that the complainant commenced employment on 30 September 2019. The respondent submits that the complainant was e-mailed her contract of employment including the company employee manual containing the terms and conditions of employment. The respondent submits that section 3.5 of the manual describes the Induction process and training costs. The respondent contends that on the complainant’s first day of employment, she presented the signed contract and had no questions/queries regarding same.

The respondent states that on her first day, the complainant attended and Induction course and it submitted the presentation and various slides involved to the WRC. The respondent states that slide 6 relates to House Policies and in this regard training was discussed in detail, including the training fees and the costs and reasoning for same.

The respondent went through in detail the various training sessions and on the job training provided to the complainant which included alcohol and drug awareness training provided by an external company and numerous airline training days on new rates/routes/destinations/aircrafts etc

The respondent states that the complainant resigned her position and her last day at work was 16 December. The respondent conducted an exit interview with the complainant on 15 December. The respondent informed the complainant that she would be paid her monies owed to her in relation to wages and holiday pay and that the training costs of €800 would be deducted from the complainant’s final pay cheque.

The respondent submits that its training fee is accumulated based on a number of costs and is dependent on the salary bracket of the employee – the costs included accrued fees for recruitment and induction fees, senior managements time, onsite training with senior staff, onsite training with internal training manager and onsite training with external trainers. The respondent states that this fee is only applicable to be paid when an employee leaves the company within 6 months of the start date and the complainant resigned her post in less than 3 months.

Having carefully examined the within complaint, I find based on the documentation provided and the witness testimony at hearing that the respondent has a policy whereby if an employee leaves the company within six months, the company recoups the amount of the training cost provided to said employee. I note that the training fee is accumulated based on a number of costs and is dependent on the salary bracket of the employee. In relation to the role of the complainant who was employed as an Operations Assistant, this fee was €800.

I am satisfied that complainant was e-mailed her contract of employment including the company employee manual containing the terms and conditions of employment at that section 3.5 of same describes in detail the Induction process and training costs involved. I note that the complainant signed the contract and presented a copy to the respondent on her first day of work. I note from the documentation provided that there was extensive training provided to the complainant both in-house and from external sources. On that basis, I find that the complainant has not established a breach of the Payment of Wages Act and accordingly I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

I find that the complainant has not established a breach of the Payment of Wages Act and accordingly I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

Payment of wages, contract of employment