Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039969
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Anthony Corbett | Health Service Executive |
Representatives | In person | HR Department |
Complaint:
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-00051569-001 | 05/07/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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.
Background:
The complainant is employed as a Staff Nurse since 2nd October 2020. The complaint relates to a deduction of €1789.89 which the complaint states was made in contravention of his employment rights. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that the amount of €1,789.89 was taken from his salary on 31st March 2022 without his knowledge or consent. The complainant confirmed that the deduction in question was made in respect of arrears of ASC that were due to be paid by him as a result of the mis classification of his employment with regard to the correct pension scheme. While the complainant accepts in principle that the arrears were due to be repaid by him, it was the manner in which the respondent deducted the payment without his knowledge or consent that he finds unacceptable. A further issue of dissatisfaction to the complainant is that the respondent, having deducted the €1789.89 from his salary, subsequently issued a loan to him for the same amount realising that the deduction of the pension arrears would have left him without sufficient funds for the period in question. The complainant’s position on this issue is that his consent was not sought for the loan and that now he has a loan to repay which was not of his choosing. The complainant stated that the actions of the respondent has resulted in him being in debt which will adversely affect his mortgage applications. The complainant acknowledges that he received a letter of apology from the respondent in relation to the situation but feels that the lack of consultation, the lack of due process, the fact that his consent was assumed as opposed to being sought from him and the lack of a payment plan in relation to the arrears and the subsequent issuing of the loan has resulted in him being adversely treated in his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent acknowledges the submissions of the complainant with regard to the deduction of the ASC arrears and the subsequent loan that issued to the complainant on the basis of having his implied consent. The respondent stated that it acted in good faith at all times towards the complainant and confirmed that it had issued an apology to the complainant in respect of the errors that had occurred concerning the implementation of the technical adjustment of the ASC arrears and subsequent loan issue. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The issue for decision in this complaint concerns the amount of €1789.89 and whether it was properly payable to the complainant and whether the recouping of the ASC arrears was an illegal deduction in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Applicable Law Wages are defined under Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as follows: "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 or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment 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 the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: In the particular circumstances of this complaint, I find that there was no illegal deduction of “wages” that were properly payable to the complainant. The technical adjustment whereby pension contributions were recouped and an identical “loan” was issued to the complainant did not result in a breach of the legislation. Accordingly, the complaint fails. |
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.
Having considered the verbal and written submissions of the parties to this complaint, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 17/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words: