ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051771
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Amanda Clarke Butler | Dehac Retail t/a Costcutter |
Representatives | Self-represented | Damien Johnston |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00063402-001 | 10/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
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.
Additional unsolicited material was submitted by the Respondent following the hearing. I wish to confirm that I have based my decision solely on the evidence which was put before me at the adjudication hearing. All unsolicited material submitted after the hearing was returned unread.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text.
The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in. Both parties were offered, and availed of, the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. Much of the evidence was in dispute between the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
The Complainant was self-represented. She was accompanied by her husband, John Butler.
The Respondent was represented by Damien Johnston, the owner of the Respondent company. He was accompanied by his wife, Elaine Johnston, who is involved in running the business and who gave evidence under oath.
Background:
The Complainant contends that the Respondent changed her pay without her consent and that she does not know the total wages owed to her as her tax credits are being used to pay her wages. The Respondent rejects the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she contacted the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue) on 19 January 2024 and explained how the Respondent was taking her tax credits from her to make up her wages. Revenue told her that her tax credits for 2024 were increased by €10.82 as her tax was decreased from €105.30 per week in 2023 to €97.15 per week in 2024. Revenue said that the increase in her tax credits was to benefit her, not her employer and should have been passed on to her so that she would have more money in her pocket. Revenue confirmed that her employer cannot take her tax credits from her. The Complainant said that she earned €755 gross per week for a 40-hour week. The Complainant submits that, according to the advice she received from Revenue, her gross pay per hour when she was working a 40-hour week was €18.87 per hour. From January 2024, her weekly hours were reduced by 5 hours to 35 hours. The Complainant submits that an hourly rate of €18.87 equates to €94.35 for five hours. Therefore, given the reduction of 5 hours in her working week with effect from 1 January 2024, her gross wages should have been reduced by €94.35 per week which gives a gross weekly wage of €660.65 (€755 - €94.35). The Complainant submits that instead of being paid €660.65 gross per week, she is now paid €608 gross per week. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Johnston said that as far as he was concerned, when the Complainant started working for him in 2020, she was paid cash. Mr Johnston submitted that he had an agreement with the Complainant that her net weekly wages would be €600, €350 of which would be paid through the books and the balance paid in cash. Mr Johnston said that from September 2023, all the Complainant’s wages have been going through the books. Mr Johnston submitted that net weekly wages of €600 equates to an hourly rate of €15. When the Complainant’s hours were reduced from 40 to 35 with effect from 1 January 2024, he calculated that her net weekly wages should be reduced to €525 (35 hours @ €15 per hour). |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the Act) provides as follows: 5.— (1) 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.
It is an indisputable fact that wages should be stated as a gross amount whether they are paid annually, weekly, or hourly. Gross wages are fixed. Net wages, however, can fluctuate depending on changes to an individual’s tax credits. If wages are calculated on a net basis, as is the case here, the employee does not benefit from any favourable changes in their tax credits. Mr Johnston seemed to be oblivious to his responsibility as an employer to pay the Complainant’s wages on a gross basis to which her tax credits should be applied in order to calculate the net amount that is due to her. The Complainant has calculated her wages on a gross basis whereas Mr Johnston’s calculation of the Complainant’s wages has been done on a net basis. I am of the view that Complainant’s method of calculation is correct, and that Mr Johnston’s is not. The Complainant asserts that she should be paid €660.65 gross per week but that she is only paid €608 leaving her with the weekly shortfall of €52.65. The Complainant’s complaint was received by the WRC on 10 May 2024. The Complainant submitted that the first unlawful deduction from her wages was made on 12 January 2024. The cognisable period for this complaint is, therefore, the period from 12 January 2024 to 10 May 2024 which equates to 17 weeks. Having considered the submissions of the parties and all evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Respondent has made an unauthorised deduction of €895.05 (17 weeks @ €52.65 per week) from the Complainant’s wages. |
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 declare that this complaint is well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €895.05. |
Dated: 09-08-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Key Words:
Incorrect calculation of wages |