Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Customer Service Manager

An IT Company

Representatives

none 

 Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors

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-00035896-001

28/04/2020

The complainant had been previously employed by the respondent and resigned on amicable terms in January, 2020 to pursue new opportunities.

In early March the company approached him asking him to return and in due course he decided to accept the improved offer and return.

He signed a new contract with a proposed start date of April 6th, 2020.

He resigned from the other company and awaited the commencement of his return to the respondent.  

The week before the start date of April 6th he was notified that, due to the Covid-19 situation, his start date was being deferred to May 11th.

But after another two weeks he was notified on April 23rd that the respondent had decided to terminate the work contract entirely.

This meant that he had resigned from a financially secure position at the previous company in order to take up a position with the respondent but as a result of its actions he lost at least two months’ salary and he now seeks compensation for it by means of this complaint.

The complaint has been submitted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and is a claim for payment of compensation for the period between the termination of his contract with the respondent and the commencement of his employment with a new employer.

The respondent submits that there is no jurisdiction under the Act to award compensation in these circumstances.

He was due to be paid an amount equivalent to any notice not paid to him but in fact not only has he been paid that due notice but he was given an ex gratia payment of one week.

For that reason, his complaint must fail.

In his direct evidence to the hearing the complainant outlined his annoyance at the turn of events in which he quit a job (while still on probation there) to return on improved terms to the respondent, which had been his employer before that.

It is easy to understand his disappointment; an entirely natural reaction to what happened.

However, he appeared to accept in the course of the hearing that the remedy he was seeking was not available to him under this legislation.

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines ‘wages’, in Section 1(i) (Interpretation) and states;

Wages in relation to an employee means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including

(a)    Any fee, bonus commission, or any holiday, sector maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract environment or otherwise, and

(b)     any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice.

(This is followed by some exceptions which do not apply in this case)

The other legal protections provided by the Act, at Section (5) refer to deductions from wages which is not relevant to the current case, as the issue concerns the circumstances around the employment contract coming to an end.

The only issue that does arise and which may fall within the scope of the Act is notice. However, I find that the respondent fully discharged its obligations in that regard.

There is no provision in the Act for payment of compensation in the circumstances of this complaint, and accordingly it is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above complaint CA-00035896-001 is not well founded.

Payment of Wages