CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE Workplace Relations Act 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision (ADJ -00044690) issued on 10/10/2023 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044690
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Suzanne Quinn | MacPrend Limited. |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-represented | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
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-00054255-001 | 21/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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. I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 to the parties who proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
Oral evidence was presented by the complainant under affirmation.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint of an unlawful deduction of €2527 from her wages on the 26/8/2022. The complainant was employed with the respondent as an office manager with administrative responsibilities from 13 October 2020 until the 3/9/2022 when she left owing to the repeated failure to pay her wages. She earned €3358 gross per month, €2688.42 net. She worked a 45-hour week. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 21/12/2022.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation. The complainant worked as the office manager with the respondent’s flooring company from 13/10/2020 until 2/9 /2022, when she resigned due to the repeated non-payment or only part-payment of her wages over a prolonged period from January – August 2022. On 31 August 2022, the respondent’s accountant questioned payments on the company credit card and asked the complainant why there were no customer invoices to match these payments. The reason was that the respondent did the flooring work for clients on a cash only basis with the result that the company accounts, denied these lodgements from sales, were unable to fund staff wages. By this stage the respondent had failed to pay the complainant her August wages, amounting to €3358. In addition, she was owed 1.33 days annual leave. The complainant made many efforts to get the respondent to pay her what she was owed, efforts met with aggression and evasions. He did make a further payment of €100 and payment of €500 to her in September 2022, but that was the end of the payments to her. The respondent advised the complainant in 2023 that he was in liquidation, but that is not correct, and he is still trading. The unlawful deduction amounts in total to €2964 |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent though notified of the time and date of the hearing g did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am required to establish if the respondent unlawfully deducted the sum of €2964 from the complainant’s wages on the 26/8/22. Relevant Law. Section 5 (1) of the 1991 Act states “An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless— (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (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) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.’ Section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 identifies a deduction as follows: “Where the total amount of 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.” As a first step in establishing the existence or not of an unlawful deduction, the complainant must demonstrate that the full gross monthly salary of €3358, less the €600 received in September, a sum of €2758 is ‘properly payable ‘to her. The complainant submitted her payslips following the hearing.On the basis of the uncontested evidence, I accept that the complainant was entitled to be paid her wages and that there was no statutory basis for any deduction.I find that the refusal to pay her wages for the month of August 2022 was an unauthorised deduction of €2758 gross and contravened section 5 (1) of the Act of 1991.I find this element of the complainant ‘s complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €2758 subject to all lawful deductions. Furthermore, on the basis of the contested evidence and on the basis of the pay slips submitted in evidence, I find that the failure to pay the complainant 1.33 days annual leave on the cesser of her employment amounts to an unlawful deduction of €206. I find this element of the complainant’s complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the sum of €206 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions. I require the respondent top pay a total sum of €2962 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions in respect of the two breaches. |
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.
I find this complaint to be well founded. I decide that the respondent should pay the sum of €2962 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions |
Dated: 10th October 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Non –payment of wages. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044690
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Suzanne Quinn | McPrend Ltd Hamptons Floorstore |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-represented | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00054255-001 | 21/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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. I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 to the parties who proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
Oral evidence was presented by the complainant under affirmation.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint of an unlawful deduction of €2527 from her wages on the 26/8/2022. The complainant was employed with the respondent as an office manager with administrative responsibilities from 13 October 2020 until the 3/9/2022 when she left owing to the repeated failure to pay her wages. She earned €3358 gross per month, €2688.42 net. She worked a 45-hour week. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 21/12/2022.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation. The complainant worked as the office manager with the respondent’s flooring company from 13/10/2020 until 2/9 /2022, when she resigned due to the repeated non-payment or only part-payment of her wages over a prolonged period from January – August 2022. On 31 August 2022, the respondent’s accountant questioned payments on the company credit card and asked the complainant why there were no customer invoices to match these payments. The reason was that the respondent did the flooring work for clients on a cash only basis with the result that the company accounts, denied these lodgements from sales, were unable to fund staff wages. By this stage the respondent had failed to pay the complainant her August wages, amounting to €3358. In addition, she was owed 1.33 days annual leave. The complainant made many efforts to get the respondent to pay her what she was owed, efforts met with aggression and evasions. He did make a further payment of €100 and payment of €500 to her in September 2022, but that was the end of the payments to her. The respondent advised the complainant in 2023 that he was in liquidation, but that is not correct, and he is still trading. The unlawful deduction amounts in total to €2964
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent though notified of the time and date of the hearing g did not attend.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I am required to establish if the respondent unlawfully deducted the sum of €2964 from the complainant’s wages on the 26/8/22. Relevant Law. Section 5 (1) of the 1991 Act states “An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless— (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (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) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.’ Section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 identifies a deduction as follows: “Where the total amount of 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.” As a first step in establishing the existence or not of an unlawful deduction, the complainant must demonstrate that the full gross monthly salary of €3358, less the €600 received in September, a sum of €2758 is ‘properly payable ‘to her. The complainant submitted her payslips following the hearing. On the basis of the uncontested evidence, I accept that the complainant was entitled to be paid her wages and that there was no statutory basis for any deduction. I find that the refusal to pay her wages for the month of August 2022 was an unauthorised deduction of €2758 gross and contravened section 5 (1) of the Act of 1991. I find this element of the complainant ‘s complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €2758 subject to all lawful deductions. Furthermore, on the basis of the contested evidence and on the basis of the pay slips submitted in evidence, I find that the failure to pay the complainant 1.33 days annual leave on the cesser of her employment amounts to an unlawful deduction of €206. I find this element of the complainant’s complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the sum of €206 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions. I require the respondent top pay a total sum of €2962 to the complainant subject to all lawful deductions in respect of the two breaches.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find this complaint to be well founded. I decide that the respondent should pay the sum of €2962 to the complainant subject to all lawful deduction |
Dated: 10/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
|