Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Romuald  Guervil

Baxter Healthcare Ireland Baxter

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Wendy Doyle Wendy Doyle Solicitors

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-00051866-001

27/07/2022

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and has submitted that the Respondent made unlawful deductions form his wages (CA-00051866-001).

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 20th March 2017 as a Credit and Collection Analyst. The Complainant was on long term sick leave and his employment ceased on the 7th July 2021.

The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent continued to deduct pensions contributions from the Complainants salary while on paid and unpaid sick leave. The Complainant submitted his salary from June 2019 to July 2021 was nil. The Complainant submitted that deductions continued to be made therefore creating a negative balance and an unwanted debt of €4,368.98. Ultimately, the Complainant submitted he disputed the entitlement of the Respondent to make deductions in the form of adjustment pending while he was on long term sick leave.

This Complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 27th July  2022.

It is the Respondents position, notwithstanding the preliminary objections, that all employees are treated in the same manner concerning their pension in the event that they are absent on paid and unpaid sick leave.

The Respondent submitted that they have dealt with the Complainants concerns through ongoing correspondence and there has been no unlawful deductions from the Complainants salary pursuant to the Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I have carefully listened to the evidence tendered and submissions, both oral and written, made in the course of the hearing of this matter by both parties.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Complaint herein was statute barred.

As an Adjudicator, I cannot hear or entertain any complaint referred to the WRC under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 if it has been presented after the expiration of a six-month period beginning on the date of the contravention (as set out in Section 41(6) of the Act).

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that:

“Subject to Section (8) an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her  under this section, if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”.

And Section 41(8) of the 2015 Act states that

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within the period was due to reasonable cause”

The Labour Court, in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338 28/10/2003, considered the issue of “reasonable cause” in the context of a similar provision to S.41(8) contained in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Section 27(5):

The Labour Court stated:

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford and excuse for the delay.  The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not irrational or absurd.  In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time.  The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon.  Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”

The Complainants employment ceased on the 7th July 2021 and this Complaint was received on the 27th July 2022. I accept the bona fides of the Complainant however no reasonable cause has been provided for the delay in submitting this Complaint. Further, it is noteworthy that the Complainant had the benefit of legal advice prior to the hearing of this matter.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied this Complaint is manifestly out of time and accordingly this Complaint is not well founded.

I find the Complaint (CA- 00051866-001) made pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is not well founded.