Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark Peter  Balazs

Ryanair Dac

Representatives

Roland Rowan BL Killian O'Reilly FieldFisher

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-00031804-001

24/10/2019

The Complainant was a Cabin Service Supervisor with the Respondent from 2005.

The Complainant says the company has not paid his salary since 28th August 2019 and 28th September 2019. He did receive some payments. He discovered this on 5th October 2019. He raised queries to the company which were not resolved. Despite calls and emails the company did not transfer his salary due of €2,232.82 until October 2019. The company promised to transfer €650 payment on 16th October 2019 at the latest. The Complainant borrowed money from friends and went to work. On 17th October 2019, the money had not been received and the Complainant wrote to the company saying he will be unable to go to work until he is paid. He lives 62km from the airport and did not have money for petrol. Despite being informed of this, the company classified this leave as unauthorised, deducting €147.24 salary and €150 bonus that he would have received.

The company says it was an “admin error” they could not rectify until October payroll. The Complainant has lost trust in them and is planning to leave the company. More tax was deducted because of the way the money was paid.

The Complainant is seeking compensation for breach of his terms and conditions. He was deducted €147.24 and €150 because he was unable to go to work on 22-24th October 2019, these were deemed “no shows” even though the company was informed in advance.

The Respondent applied to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution due to the non-appearance of the Complainant at the first hearing.

The Respondent says all monies due to the Complainant have been discharged. The Complainant was on paternity leave from 18th to 31 July 2019 and was removed from payroll. He was due to be put back on payroll but wasn’t due to an administration error. The Complainant received some pay in July. In August 2019 the Complainant’s inflight bonus was stopped as he was not flying for two weeks.

The first notification the Respondent received of the error was on 6th October 2019. The company have a high level of queries on payroll and hr issues due to the number of staff. As the payroll deadline had passed the company thought the sum could not be paid until November 2019 and offered an advance. The Complainant said this was not enough to get him through until the end of November. The €650 advance was cancelled and the Complainant was told he would be paid in full on 25th October 2019. The sum of €2,227 was paid to the Complainant on 25th October 2019, and a further €158.75 in November 2019.

The complaint was made on 24th October 2019, but the Complainant knew he would be paid the next day. The company says there is no breach of S6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, there was no failure to pay, it was fixed as quickly as possible.

The company HR representative said there is a significant impact where there is a no show by a number 1 attendant as this person is harder to replace and causes delay. The employee handbook signed by the Complainant sets out the terms of the no show policy. The Complainant refused to work the days 22-24th October 2019 as a protest and is not entitled to pay.

The Complainant suffered no loss and the complaint is vexatious.

I have heard and considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The parties were advised of the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski v An Adjudication Officer & Ors [2021] IESC 24 of 6th April 2021, that my decision would be published with the parties names and that amending legislation to allow witness evidence to be taken on oath by the Workplace Relations Commission was being prepared. The parties confirmed they wished to proceed with the hearing.

This case was initially scheduled for hearing on 16th December 2019. There was no appearance by the Complainant at the first hearing. The Complainant subsequently provided substantial grounds for non-appearance within seven days as requested, submitting a confidential medical report evidencing reasons for non-appearance at the hearing and a translation to the Workplace Relations Commission. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 13th May 2021.

At the second hearing the Respondent applied to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution due to the non-appearance of the Complainant at the first hearing. This application was refused as substantial grounds for non-appearance had been provided by the Complainant.

There was a shortfall in payment of wages due to the Complainant in August and September 2019. This came to the attention of the Complainant who notified the Respondent on 6th October 2019. As a result, the Complainant said he could not attend work on 22nd, 23rd and 24th October 2019 until he was paid as he did not have money for transport. The Complainant also claims a no show deduction of €147.24 and a bonus of €150 unpaid as a result of his non-attendance.

Much of the shortfall was discharged by the Respondent on 25th October 2019, and a small balance paid in November 2019.  The Respondent Supervisor gave evidence the payments were made as soon as possible after notification given the payroll arrangements, and it was an oversight.

I find the complaint is well founded. There was a breach of S5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to payment of wages and a deduction due to an oversight which resulted in a delay in payment to the Complainant, however this was a technical breach and the company rectified this as soon as possible.

As a result of the shortfall, the Complainant was at a loss financially and says he was not able to attend work from 22nd October to 24th October due to his reduced wages in August and September 2019. I accept the Complainant’s evidence this caused financial pressure. I direct the Respondent to pay the deductions of €147.24 and €150 total €297.24 made for non-attendance on the shifts from 22nd to 24th October 2019 to the Complainant.

I find the complaint is well founded.

I direct the Respondent to pay the deductions of €147.24 and €150 total €297.24 made for the Complainant’s non-attendance on the shifts from 22nd to 24th October 2019 to the Complainant.

Shortfall in wages, technical breach, deductions for non-attendance