Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Katie  Curry

Health Service Executive

Representatives

Robert Walsh MCGOVERN WALSH & CO SOLICIOTRS

 Health Service Executive HR Department.

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-00041284-001

27/11/2020

The Complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer with the Respondent from 24 August 2003 to 1 June 2020, when she reached retirement age.  The Complainant worked 35 hours per week on a gross monthly salary of €1746.16; net €1118.63.  The Complainant submits that the Respondent unlawfully deducted the net sum of €14,000 from her salary contrary to the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant submits that, prior to her retirement, the Respondent erroneously, but unlawfully, deducted the net sum of €14,000 from her wages. The Complainant submits that the Respondent owned up to the error and committed to paying the sum in the six-month period prior to the lodging of the complaint but failed to do so. The Complainant is seeking a return of the unlawfully deducted sum.

The Respondent accepted that an error was made with regard to unlawful deduction of wages and that it was in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent submitted that it was its understanding that the Complainant is lawfully owed the net sum of €14,000 in accordance with the Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended, states:

(1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well-founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages (after the making of any lawful deductions therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount presented to paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

(2)

(a) An adjudication officer shall not give a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to a deduction or payment referred to in that subsection at any time after the commencement of hearing of proceedings in a court brought by the employee concerned in respect of the deduction or payment.

(b) An employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount in proceedings in a court in respect of such a deduction or payment as aforesaid at any time after an adjudication officer has given a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the deduction or payment.

There was no conflict of evidence nor argument in this case. Both sides agreed there was an unlawful deduction of a net sum €14,000 which had been properly payable to the Complainant, contrary to the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Under these circumstances, I find that the claim is well-founded  and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the net amount of €14,000.

There was no conflict of evidence nor argument in this case in that both sides agreed there was an unlawful deduction of a net sum of €14,000 which had been properly payable to the Complainant, contrary to the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Under these circumstances, I find that the complaint is well-founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the net amount of €14,000.

Payment of Wages Act 1991.