ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035117
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Janice Rose Doyle | Small Changes Wholefoods Store |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
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-00046059-001 | 09/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The witnesses relied on the affirmation to accompany their testimony.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant alleges that she was due to be paid for 22 days annual leave on her resignation from the respondent company. She stated that she was paid €706.25 weekly and worked out the 22 days holiday pay before deductions at €3,110.50 (€706.25 X4 = €2,825 + 2 days €282.50). However she states that in the deductions column of her payslip, the respondent has put 40 hours overpaid at €706.25 and has unlawfully deducted this amount for her pay. The complainant submits that the respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act. The complainant stated that while her hours were 9 am to 5 pm that in the last few months while she was employed at the respondent company as a result of Covid she had requested to work through her lunch break and leave at 4.20 in order to catch a train and this was agreed to by her manager. However she submits that she was never informed that her holiday pay would be altered in any way as a result of this short term arrangement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent stated that the complainant’s annual leave was calculated at 1/3 week per month worked in 2021. It was submitted that included in the complainant’s salary was a paid 1 hour lunch break. The respondent asserts that the complainant requested that she be allowed not to take this break and leave work 1 hour early instead. The respondent stated that when this request was granted, the complainant was informed that rather than her salary being altered that it would have an impact on her holiday entitlements. The respondent states that the deductions from her holiday entitlements reflect this. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having carefully considered the within claim, I find based on the evidence heard that the respondent has breached the Payment of Wages Act in its unlawful deduction of €706.25 from the complainant’s pay. Having heard the testimony of the complainant and that of the respondent, I find the complainant’s evidence more cogent and compelling. The complainant has established a breach of the Payment of Wages Act and accordingly I find that her complaint is well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This complaint is well-founded. I order the respondent to pay the complainant €706.25.
Dated: 10th May 2022.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act |