FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : MDE INSTALLATIONS LIMITED DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No’s: ADJ-00029536 CA-00039659-001.
This is an appeal on behalf of MDE Installations Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00029536; CA-00039659-001, dated 26 February 2021) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that Mr Fitzpatrick’s (‘the Complainant’) claim under the Act was well-founded and awarded him compensation of €717.60. The Complainant was employed as a smart meter installer for four days by the Respondent between the 4thand the 7thof August 2020. Those four days were spent in training. The Complainant was dismissed at the end of the fourth day having completed a total of 32 hours of training. His contractual rate of pay was €23.00 per hour. The Complainant received no payment from the Respondent on the termination of his employment. The Respondent relies on the following clause in the Complainant’s contract of employment to justify its decision to withhold the Complainant’s earnings: “You will receive significant training from the Company before commencing your role. The Company values the cost of training provided to you at €3,600. If you accept this offer of employment, you agree that, if you should cease employment with the Company before 6 months of your having completed training, or should you leave employment within the probationary period without giving the required notice of one month working in the field (other than where your employment is ended because ESB have declined to provide the Company with appropriate work), you will reimburse to the Company (and the Company shall be entitled to recover from you) an appropriate percentage of the cost, as follows: If you leave our employment: during induction or training, or within 6 months after completion of training, 50% of the cost incurred at the date of your leaving; between 6 and 12 months after the completion of training, 50% of the cost; and between 12 and 24 months after the completion of training, 25% of the cost. You acknowledge that by accepting this offer of employment, you are accepting the conditions for repayment of training costs described above.” Discussion and Decision There is no dispute between the Parties in relation to the material facts in this case. The only matter in issue is the interpretation the Respondent seeks to place on the contractual provision quoted above. The Respondent’s representative was afforded ample opportunity by the Court to provide a rationale for the Respondent’s reliance on that contractual provision to justify its decision to withhold the Complainant’s accrued earnings when he was dismissed from his employment on 7 August 2020. The representative did not avail herself of the opportunity to explain to the Court the basis for the Respondent’s belief that the contractual provision in question rendered the non-payment of the Complainant’s wages lawful within the meaning of the Act. Instead, the representative chose to focus on the Complainant’s alleged inappropriate attitude and conduct during the fourth day of his training. The Court finds that the contractual provision in question bears one interpretation only i.e. it provides a basis on which the Respondent can lawfully seek to recoup a proportion of its expenditure on training an employee when that employee voluntarily resigns his/her employment during training, induction or within a certain period of completing the relevant training. The Complainant in this case did not voluntarily leave his employment; he was dismissed from his employment by the Respondent. The contractual clause, therefore, cannot be relied on by the Respondent in this case to justify its decision not to pay the Complainant. In an appeal under the 1991 Act, the Court is not concerned with the fairness or otherwise of an employee’s dismissal or whether or not the Respondent decision to dismiss the employee was justified. The Court is concerned, in such an appeal, only to determine whether or not there was a lawful basis for any deduction made by the Respondent from the Complainant’s earnings. The Court finds that the justification advanced by the Respondent to this appeal – the contractual clause cited above – is not a lawful basis for its decision to withhold payment of his wages to the Complainant. It follows, therefore, that the non-payment to the Complainant of his wages for the four days he was employed by the Respondent amounts to an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act. The Court awards the Complainant compensation of €736.00. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly. The Court so determines.
NOTE |
