DECISION NO. PWD2340
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
PARTIES:
Magna International Autolaunch Ireland Limited
(REPRESENTED BY IBEC)
AND
Colman Curran
(REPRESENTED BY Shaun Boylan BL,
INSTRUCTED BY SEAN ORMONDE & CO. SOLICITORS)
DIVISION
Chairman: Ms. Connolly
Employer Member: Mr. Marie
Worker Member: Ms. Tanham
SUBJECT
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00036079 (CA-00047300-002)
BACKGROUND
This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on September 20 2023 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
DECISION
Mr Colman Curran (the Complainant) has appealed a decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer held that Mr Curran's claim against his former employer, Magna International Autolaunch Ireland Ltd (the Respondent), was not well founded. This appeal is linked to EDA2348.
Background
The Complainant worked as a production operative with the Respondent since January 2018. He was absent from work following a workplace incident on 25 June 2021 until the 24 September 2021 when his employment ended by virtue of his resignation. The Complainant contends that there was an implied term in his contract of employment, by virtue of an established custom and practice, that he be paid in full during the period of any absence from work due to workplace injury. The Respondent denies any such entitlement and submits that no unlawful deduction of wages occurred.
Position of the Complainant
The Complainant was seriously injured in an unprovoked assault by a co-worker at work on 25 June 2021. He suffered a deviated septum to his nose and concussion, as well as injuries to his neck and right hand. He did not return to work following the assault.
The Complainant was paid his normal pay up to the 7 July 2021. This payment was recorded as 'injury pay' on the payslip. On 13 July 2021 he was notified that the payment made for the week of 7 July 2021 was made in error and that the alleged overpayment, despite being noted as 'injury pay' on his pay slip, would be deducted from his future pay or reclassified as holiday pay. The deduction never in fact took place.
On three previous occasions when the Complainant was absent from work because of workplace injuries the Complainant was automatically paid his full wages. Accordingly, the Complainant had a reasonable expectation that he would receive his full wages for the duration of his absence following an unprovoked assault in the workplace.
The Complainant accepts that the company's sick pay scheme is a discretionary scheme, intended to supplement state benefits to produce a total payment equivalent to 50% of the employee's normal basic take home pay. However, in the past, the Respondent exercised its discretion under the sick pay scheme to pay the Complainant full salary when he was absent on certified sick leave. By exercising its discretion in such a manner, the Respondent established a custom and practice whereby the Complainant was paid his full salary when absent from work due to workplace induced illnesses or injuries. This practice was so notorious, certain, reasonable, and obligatory that it amounted to an established custom and practice on the part of the Respondent.
The Complainant relies on the case of Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker [2002] EWCA Civ 946 where the Court of Appeal of England and Wales affirmed the decision of the EAT that the entitlement to an enhanced redundancy claim was implied into the contract of employment by reason of custom and practice.
The Complainant was absent from work from 25 June to 27 September 2021. His pay claim relates to the period from 7 July 2021 to 10 September 2021. He was entitled to be paid during this period of certified absence. His weekly salary was €575.64 gross or €521.29 nett per week. He suffered a total salary loss of €6,890.00. He accepts that he was paid 50% of this sum via social welfare and seeks the balance of his wages €3,445.00 from the Respondent in respect of his unpaid wages.
Position of the Respondent
The Complainant's claim for loss of earnings relates to a period of sick leave. He was paid in accordance with the company sick leave policy and was not entitled to any further sick pay.
The Company Sick Pay Scheme is a discretionary scheme "intended to supplement the state benefit in addition to any other source of income received to produce a total payment equivalent to 50% the employees normal basic take home pay". The duration of sick pay is limited to one week for every completed year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks in total. As the Complainant commenced employment on 22 January 2018, he was entitled to three weeks sick pay. The Complainant was paid four weeks sick pay benefit, so received more than his entitlement.
A Workplace /Injury Benefit Policy was introduced in July 2020. While there may have been a practice in the past to pay employees when absent following incidents at work, there is no automatic entitlement to a payment under the new policy. The Complainant was aware of the new policy and attended a training session that addressed the reporting of workplace accidents and incidents. He was aware of the process for making an application under the new policy and no request was made by the Complainant for a payment under the scheme. Had he done so there was no automatic entitlement as the scheme is discretionary in nature.
The Complainant received all payments that he was entitled to under the company sick pay scheme and the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy.
Evidence of the Complainant
Following an assault by a colleague in the workplace on 25 June 2021, the Complainant was diagnosed with concussion and a deviated septum. He expected to be paid for his absence and was paid in full up until 7 July 2021, which was consistent with what he thought would happen and had happened in the past. The payslip recorded the payment as injury pay.
There was a custom and practice of paying full pay for instances of certified sick leave as a result of a workplace injury. The Complainant suffered a workplace injury on three occasions previously and was paid in full each time. He suffered an eye injury at work and was absent from 23 November 2018 to 30 November 2018. He suffered a wrist injury at work and was absent from 26 April 2019 to 14 May 2019. He suffered another eye injury and was absent from 30 May 2019 to 6 June 2019. On each occasion he was told to see his doctor and was paid in full and reimbursed for expenses. There was no application process or formalities. Payment was instant. He was not required to send any emails.
On 13 July 2021, the Complainant was advised by the HR Manager that he was paid in error for the week 7 July and the company would deduct the overpayment or reclassify it as holiday pay.
When he queried what payment would apply for his medical expenses and salary while absent, he was referred to the company sick pay scheme in the employee handbook. The Sick Pay Scheme provides for a top up of Social Welfare to 50% of pay. The Complainant never received a payment under that scheme. No reference was made to the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy.
The Complainant had no income after 7 July 2021. When he raised this matter with the Magna Hotline, he was informed that the company had made a discretionary decision to consider the Complainant as having completed four years of service (as opposed to his actual three years of service) for the purposes of calculating his sick pay entitlement, and that any 'top-up' payment made to him would amount to 50% of his weekly wage. This was the full extent of the payment offered.
His application for social welfare benefit was delayed. He was advised to apply for occupational injury benefit, but Siobhan Mellamphy delayed the claim, either deliberately or by accident, by saying that his absence was related to illness and not a workplace injury. When he again raised that matter with the Magna Hotline his forms were filled without further questions.
Under cross examination, the Complainant said that he did not know if past payments made to him were made in line with a company policy to top-up social welfare payments, as he was not aware of either the company sick pay scheme or the Workplace Illness/Injury Policy. He confirmed that he had acted as a Health & Safety representative but said that he was not aware if the new Workplace Injury/Illness Policy was discussed at Health and Safety meetings or highlighted on notice boards when it was introduced in 2020. He could not recall attending a team briefing on 24 November 2020, nor could he recall signing a document confirming his attendance at that briefing. He did not accept that a signature shown to him on an Employee Training/Briefing Record dated 21 November 2020 was his. He said the writing was slanted the wrong way. He confirmed that he had signed his signature to another undated document titled 'Standard Risk Assessment' that was shown to him.
Evidence of Mr Brendan Hickey
Mr Hickey was a colleague of the Complainant. He had a workplace injury five years previously when he lost his teeth. He was paid for that absence and had his teeth done. He had no knowledge of the Workplace Illness/Injury Policy. He was not aware of briefing session or notices on notice boards.
Evidence of Ms Siobhan Mellamphy - HR Manager
The Complainant was entitled to three weeks' pay under the sick pay scheme, as he had three years service. Payment is made by topping up social welfare payments and this information must be supplied before a payment can be made. The complainant was paid four weeks sick pay which was more than his entitlement under the sick pay scheme.
Benefits under the sick pay scheme and the Injury/Illness Policy are separate benefits. Before 2020 injury benefit was generally paid where it was established that there was a case. The Workplace Injury/Illness Policy was a new policy introduced in July 2020 which provides for up to six days pay for a workplace injury. An employee can request an extension to the payment. In those circumstances there is an investigation, and any extension of payment beyond six days is required to be authorised. She was not aware of anyone receiving a discretionary payment where it was not requested.
The Complainant did not apply for a payment under the Injury/Illness scheme but was paid one week's pay under the policy in error. That payment was authorised by another colleague in error, as the only person that can authorise payment under that policy is Petrus Wall. Ms Mellamphy notified the Complainant about the overpayment.
The Complainant was not fit to attend work. She did not know how unwell he was initially. He was referred to occupational health and she awaited that report. The Complainant was aware of the company policies, as he had signed for these. He never raised any issues about his signature on documents before the Court hearing.
Under cross examination, Ms Hellamphy confirmed that she had responsibility for employee welfare along with the Health & Safety Manager. She confirmed that the Complainant had raised the issue of non-payment of his wages with her, and subsequently with the Magna Hotline.
Ms Hellamphy said that responsibility for the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy rests with Health & Safety not with HR. She accepted that HR was involved in administering the policy, and that applications for payment under that policy must be submitted to HR. The policy states that the HR department will provide relevant information regard claiming this benefit if required. She said that she did not think of bringing the policy to the attention of the Complainant as she thought that he was aware it. The onus was on the employee to apply for the benefit. She did not intentionally omit referring to the policy in her correspondence to him. In retrospect it would have been the right thing to do.
Ms Hellamphy said that she engaged with Social Welfare on the Complainant's behalf when there was a delay with his application. She advised a Social Welfare representative that she did not know if the Complainant's absence related to the altercation in the workplace, as he had claimed. When asked why she was reluctant to refer to the Complainant's condition as a workplace injury, Ms Hellamphy said that she believed that was the right thing to do as his medical certificates referred to a medical illness. She could not recall when they received the medical certificates stating that the Complainant had a head injury but confirmed HR received the medical report in early August.
Ms Hellamphy said that the Complainant received all his entitlements. He was paid injury benefit for six days, which was not signed off, as there had no medical evidence at that point.
Evidence of Mr Petrus Wall - Environmental Health & Safety Manager
Mr Wall is responsible for the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy which was introduced in July 2020. The aim was to change workplace culture, by encouraging employees to take greater responsibility for their actions regarding accidents and incidents. Before then, there was no written policy in place and the practice was that employees were generally paid, with no questions asked.
The new policy provides for an automatic payment for a six-day period. There is no automatic payment thereafter. Payment can be extended, if warranted, at the discretion of the general manager who takes advice from the Environmental Health & Safety Manager on the matter. The onus is on an employee to apply for a payment.
Mr Wall was satisfied that the Complainant was aware of the new policy, as he was a member of the Health & Safety Committee. It was a big deal at the time. The policy was introduced during Covid, so different measures were used to get the message out to employees. Notices were placed on notice boards, team leaders were debriefed, and a text message sent to all 470 employees.
Under cross examination, Mr Wall said that he knew that the Complainant had read the text message about the new policy but acknowledged that he no evidence to substantiate that assertion at the hearing. He was responsible for investigations into workplace accidents and incidents but arranged for the investigation into the incident on 21 June 2021 to be handled by others, as he had a very good working relationship with the Complainant and was not comfortable conducting it. He notified the Health & Safety Authority that the Complainant had suffered an injury at work.
Mr Wall accepted that the Complainant's injury fell within the ambit of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy. In his view, the Complainant was entitled to six days payment under the policy. The Complainant did not apply for a payment. He did not refer the Complainant to the policy, as he was not involved. He agreed that the Complainant should have been referred to the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy.
He could not comment on how one week's injury pay was made to the Complainant in error. The Complainant did not apply for an extension of the injury payment. Payment is not extended beyond six days without an investigation and approval by the general manager. He could not comment on the Complainant's entitlements under the Sick Pay Scheme as that was not his area of responsibility. His understanding was that entitlements could arise under both policies.
The Applicable Law
Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 ('Act') provides in part 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, or
Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides in part as follows:
(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless
(a) [N/A],
(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or
(c) [N/A]
(6) Where
(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or
(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,
then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.
Deliberation
This appeal is linked to ADE/23/26 and during the Court hearing testimony was heard from witnesses which related to both appeals. While several matters were raised in evidence and in oral and written submissions relating to the workplace incident of 25 June 2021, the Court's jurisdiction in the within appeal is confined to assessing whether an unlawful deduction was made from the Complainants wages following his absence from work after the incident in June 2021 up until his employment ended on 27 September 2021.
What Amount is Properly Payable?
The Act provides that where the total amount of wages properly payable to an employee is not paid, any deficiency is regarded as a deduction. Consequently, to ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 the Court needs in the first instance to ascertain what wages are properly payable.
The starting point for assessing what is properly payable is the contract of employment.
In this case, the Complainant asserts that his contractual entitlement to a payment arises from an established custom and practice to pay him full pay less any social welfare payments when he is absent from work due to a workplace injury. The Court was referred to three occasions when the Complainant suffered a workplace illness or injury and remained on full pay to assert that there was an established custom and practice in the employment. The Court also heard evidence from Mr Brendan Hickey, a colleague of the Complainant, who told the Court that he was paid when absent following a workplace injury five years ago.
The Respondent fully accepts that prior to July 2020 the practice in the workplace was that employees were paid in full when absent from work for a work-related injury or illness, with no questions asked. Its position is that the established practice changed in July 2020 when a formal written policy was implemented.
The Court was referred to the document titled 'Workplace Injury/Illness Policy' with an effective date of 14 July 2020. The Court heard evidence from Mr Petrus Wall, Environmental Health & Safety Manager, about the rationale for introducing a formal policy in 2020 and various measures taken to communicate the new policy to staff. For his part, the Complainant said that he was not aware of the new policy and could not recall attending meetings where it was discussed. The Court found the Complainant's evidence on this matter vague and the Court had some difficulty with his testimony that he was unaware of a new health and safety policy introduced in 2020, in circumstances where he was a designated health and safety representative at that time, and in circumstances where he admits to signing a document relating to a risk assessment meeting.
On balance the Court accepts the evidence of Mr Petrus Wall on this matter and Court finds that the Complainant was aware of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy when it was introduced in July 2020 and was also aware that the policy was intended to govern/restrict how and when payments were made to persons absent from work as a result of a work-related injury.
The Court was provided with copy of the Complainant's contract of employment, dated 22 January 2018, which sets out his principal terms and conditions of employment. The preamble to the contract states, inter alia, that: -
All policies, procedures, rules, etc, outlined in the Autolaunch Ltd. Employee Handbook are also incorporated into this agreement which you are bound to adhere to. The Employee Handbook may be amended from time to time. This agreement together with the Employee Handbook embody the complete Agreement between Autolaunch Ltd. and Mr Colman Curran.
In the court's view the facts of this case differ from Albion Automotive Ltd v Walker [2002] EWCA Civ 946, which addressed whether employees were contractually entitled to the benefit of enhanced redundancy terms by virtue of a custom and practice. In the Albion Automotive case there was no written contract of employment, no written statement of terms and conditions of employment, and no reference to the disputed enhanced redundancy payment in a collective agreement agreed between the unions and the employer. By contrast, in the within case there is both a written contract of employee and an Employee Handbook. A term will only be implied into a contract of employment where it does not contradict any other express term of the contract. It is an express term of the Complainant's contract of employment that the complete agreement is embodied in the contract itself and the Employee Handbook.
The Court finds that the formal policy introduced in 2020 replaced a practice in place prior to that date. That practice was not a contractual entitlement. The Court finds that the Complainant cannot rely on that practice to assert that the amount properly payable to him when absent from work due to a workplace illness or injury are his normal wages.
The Court is of the view any wages properly payable to the Complainant during the relevant period in this case must be established by reference to his contract of employment and any related policies set out in the Employee Handbook.
What was the Complainant's contractual entitlement?
The company sick pay scheme and the Injury/Illness policy introduced in 2020 are separate benefits.
Was the Complainant entitled to a payment under the company sick pay scheme?
The relevant excerpts from the company sick pay scheme apply as follows:
'Autolaunch's discretionary sick pay scheme intended to supplement the state benefit in addition to any other source of income received to produce a total payment equivalent to 50% of the employee's take home pay.' To be eligible for the sick pay scheme an employee must have completed one full year of continuous service.
Employees shall be required to remit to the Finance Department the Social Welfare cheques received from the Department of Social Welfare or a copy of the receipt of payment from the Department of Social Welfare. These will be returned to the employee, together with a tax rebate and whatever Company subsidy may be due. The benefit waiting period is five (5) working days of any illness or one (1) day if the employee requires immediate hospitilization or is involved in a car accident. The sick pay scheme runs from January 1 to December 1 of each year and does not renew for continuous absence. An employee must return to work for six (6) months to requalify for sick pay. Total payment of the sick pay scheme is limited one week for every completed year of service to a maximum of 12 week in total.
The Respondent's position is that the Complainant's absence from work fell within the ambit of the company sick pay scheme, and notwithstanding the discretionary nature of the scheme, submits that the Complainant was entitled to three weeks sick pay based on his length of service.
The Complainant accepts that the company sick pay scheme is a discretionary service-related scheme designed to pay the equivalent of 50% of an employee's normal basic take home pay. However, he submits that the Respondent exercised its discretion in such a way that the practice of paying employees full pay when absent on sick leave was an established custom and practice. No evidence was presented to the Court to support the assertion that there was an established custom and practice of paying employees full pay when absent on sick leave. As a result, the Court cannot find any custom and practice of paying employees full pay when absent on sick leave.
Having regard to the oral and written submissions made and the evidence presented by the witnesses, the Court finds that the Complainant's absence from work fell within the ambit of the company sick pay scheme.
The company Sick Pay Scheme provides for one week's benefit for every completed year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks pay. This payment applies after a waiting period of five days. The benefit paid is 50% of normal basic pay, inclusive of any Social Welfare payment received. The Court heard that the Complainant had three years service.
As a result, the Court finds the Complainant was entitled to a sick pay benefit of 50% of normal basic pay, inclusive of any Social Welfare payment received for a three-week period, after a waiting period of five days.
Entitlement under the Workplace injury/illness policy
The relevant excerpts from the Workplace Injury/Illness policy provide as follows:
Clause 9.1.1: 'Employees will be paid Workplace Injury/Illness Lost Time (WILTB) for a period of up to 6 days following the day that the workplace injury/illness occurs, after which point the injured person will be entitled to Illness /Injury Benefit as a standard payment from the Department of social Welfare. The onus is on the employee to apply for this payment.' The Hr department will provide relevant information regarding claiming this benefit if required.
Clause 9.1.4: Extension to the WILTB Payment: An extension to the six day Workplace Injury/Illness Lost Time Benefit payment may be requested by filling out form AL-EHSF-60. This form must be submitted to the HR Department within 5 days of the day of the workplace injury/illness occurring. The policy further states that any request for an extension to the six-day payment will be subject to the approval by the General Manager and will be assessed having regard to specific criteria.
Medical certificates produced in evidence support the contention that the Complainant suffered a workplace injury. While the initial certificate stated that the Complainant was unfit due to a 'Medical illness', all subsequent medical certificates covering the period from 7 July 2021 onwards stated that the Complainant was unable to attend work due to a 'Head Injury at Work'. Furthermore, the Occupational Medical Report dated 28 July 2020 states that following a work incident the Complainant suffered soft tissue strains to his neck and shoulders and appears to have sustained cartilage injury to the nose. He was certified as unfit for work for a further six weeks.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Complainant's injury fell within the ambit of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy and his contractual entitlement to pay fell within the terms of that policy.
The policy places a clear obligation on employees to apply for any payment available under the policy. No such application was made by the Complainant. The policy places a corresponding obligation on the HR Department to provide relevant information regarding claiming this benefit if required. The HR department in this case failed to provide the Complainant with relevant information about the operation of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy.
Ms Hellamphy gave evidence that when the Complainant queried if his medical expenses and salary would be paid, she referred him to the sick pay scheme in the Employee Handbook, as his medical certificates referred to an 'illness'. She said that she did not intentionally omit referring to the Workplace Injury/Illness policy in her correspondence to the Complainant. The Court had some difficulty with Ms Hellamphy's evidence on this matter, as all certificates covering the period from 7 July 2021 onwards clearly stated that the Complainant suffered a 'head injury'.
In the Court's view the Complainant cannot be held liable for failing to comply with a policy in circumstances where he sought specific advice from HR on what salary would apply during his absence and where the Respondent failed in its obligation to provide details of the application process for accessing Workplace Injury/Illness benefit. It seems to the Court that in the circumstances of this case, where the Complainant was absent from work with a head injury, greater efforts should have been made by HR to inform the Complainant about the operation of the Illness/Injury Policy.
Mr Wall's evidence was that in his view the Complainant's injury at work fell within the ambit of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy. He said that the new policy provides for an automatic payment for a six-day period, and in his view the Complainant was entitled to six days payment under the policy.
Considering Mr Wall's evidence about the operation of policy, and that the new policy provides for an automatic payment for a six-day period, the Court finds that the Complainant's injury fell within the ambit of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy and the amount properly payable to him was six days payment, as provided under Clause 9.1.1 of the policy.
Clause 9.1.4 of the policy provides for an extension to the payment in certain circumstances. The Court heard evidence that a payment is not extended beyond six days without an investigation and that any extension is granted solely at the discretion of the general manager who takes advice from the Environmental Health & Safety Manager on the matter. As any extended payment is clearly discretionary in nature, and is subject to an investigation process, the Court finds that the Complainant cannot assert that an extended payment under the Policy was properly payable to him during the relevant period.
Having regard to the oral and written submissions made and the evidence presented by the witnesses, the Court finds that the Complainant's injury fell within the ambit of the Workplace Injury/Illness Policy and that as a result he was entitled to six days payment as provided under Clause 9.1.1 of the policy.
Was the Complainant entitled to payment under both the sick pay scheme and the workplace injury scheme?
The Court heard in evidence that the company sick pay scheme and the Injury/Illness policy introduced in 2020 are separate benefits. No evidence was submitted to assert that entitlements cannot arise under both schemes.
Was there a shortfall in payment?
Section 5(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from making deductions to an employee's wages except in accordance with the provisions of that section.
Sick Pay Scheme
The Complainant was entitled to a sick pay benefit of 50% of normal basic pay, inclusive of any Social Welfare payment received for a three-week period, after a waiting period of five days.
It is accepted that in August 2021 the Complainant received a payment topping up his social welfare payment to 50% of his normal salary. The Respondent submits covered a three-week period. This is supported by payslips submitted to the Court by the Respondent after the hearing. A payslip for pay period 33, dated 18 August 2021, records that the Complainant received a payment of €228.28. A further payslip for pay period 34, dated 25 August 2021, records that the Complainant received a payment of €55.57. Both payments are recorded as 'Sick Pmt' (sic).
As a result, the Court finds that there was no shortfall in the sick pay benefits payable to the Complainant during the relevant period.
Illness /Injury Scheme
The Complainant's was entitled to six days payment as provided under Clause 9.1.1 of the Illness /Injury Scheme policy.
It is accepted that the Complainant was paid five days' payment under that policy. The payslip for pay period 27 dated 7 July 2021 records an injury payment of €478 nett. The Respondent submits this payment was made in error and the Complainant was notified about the overpayment, but no deduction for that overpayment ever made.
As the Complainant had an entitlement to six days pay under the policy was paid for five days, the Court finds that there was a shortfall of one day's payment during the relevant period. The Court determines that an unlawful deduction from the Complainants wages occurred during this period and as a result the complaint is well founded.
The Court determines that the Complainant suffered a deduction from his wages of one day's pay which is calculated to be €95.60 nett, and that this deduction was unlawful.
The Court finds that the complaint is partially well founded.
The Court directs the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €95.60 by way of compensation.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
| GOG Katie Connolly | |
| 27 November 2023 Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing and addressed to Garrett O'Grady, Court Secretary.