ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048127
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aleksander Szczesny | Care4yourhome Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Did not attend Hearing. |
Complaints:
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-00059141-001 | 29/09/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00059141-002 | 29/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose.
Background:
The Complainant was a skilled Worker engaged by a Building Services Company. The employment started on the 17th of July 2023 and ended on the 8th September 2023. The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been € 2,295.00 per fortnight for a 39-hour week. The allegations made were that the Employer made an Illegal deduction from the Complainant’s wages and did not pay the correct amount in the Complainant’s final pay. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
1:1 Alleged Deductions – CA--00059141-001 The sum of €1,600 was deducted from the Complainant’s remuneration. This was allegedly based on a Breach of “Clause 6. No Competition” in his original contract, some allegedly missing tools not returned and a failure to attend a Qualification course arranged by the Respondent Employer. The Complainant could offer no explanation of the “No Competition” suggestion by the Respondent, the Qualification Course was an industry standard one and could easily have been cancelled at no employer cost. As regards the tool he still had it but saw little point in returning it when such a massive deduction had been made in respect of it. He pointed to Section 5 of the Act regarding prior notice of deductions, at least a week and the need for such deductions to be “fair and reasonable”. The Respondent employer had refused to offer any explanations despite being requested to do so. Copies of e mail traffic were presented in evidence. 1:2 Overpayment of Wages – CA--00059141-002 A sum of €405 was deducted from the Complainant as “Over paid wages”. This had arisen from an error in the Hours quoted by the main Contractor and the hours submitted for payroll to the Respondent. E mail correspondence was produced by the Complainant to demonstrate that the wage Deduction had been in error and that the correct wages had initially been paid. The Complainant had been ignored on this matter.
|
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the Hearing and no evidence, either Written or Oral was presented. I was satisfied that the time, date and place of the Hearing had been properly advised to the Respondent. The Complainant produced CRO Records to confirm the Name and Address of the Respondent. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Alleged Deductions – CA--00059141-001 The Complainant gave Sworn evidence under Oath/Affirmation. The deduction of €1,600 without any proper notice or detailed explanation/opportunity for discussion was clearly (in the absence of any Respondent counter arguments/rebuttal evidence) in breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991. 3:2 Overpayment of Wages – CA--00059141-002 The Complainant gave Sworn evidence under Oath/Affirmation. The pay records produced by the Complainant, (in the absence of any Respondent counter arguments/rebuttal evidence) appeared to justify his case that the Deduction of the €405 was not correct. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 & Section 6 of the Payment of wages Act,1991 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
4:1 Alleged Deductions – CA--00059141-001
Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 the Complaint is deemed to be Well Founded.
The deduction of €1,600 is to be repaid to the Complainant as soon as possible. Repayment to be in the period of six weeks from the date of the Adjudication finding being published.
4:2 Overpayment of Wages – CA--00059141-002
On the sworn evidence of the Complainant this complaint is deemed to be well founded.
The deduction of € 405 is to be repaid to the Complainant as soon as possible. Repayment to be in the period of six weeks from the date of the Adjudication finding being published.
Dated: 08th April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Deductions from Pay, Deductions for overpayment. |