Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Barry  McKelvey

Iarnrod Eireann, Irish Rail

Representatives

Dave Curran SIPTU

 John Brosnan

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-00057050-001

09/06/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant, his Union representative, and two representatives of the employer attended the hearing.  The evidence was not in contention and accordingly no evidence was given, and no oath nor affirmation were administered.  The parties relied on their written submissions outlined by their representatives at the hearing.,

The agreed facts in this case are that the complainant took a case against his employer to the High Court and the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.  The complainant’s case was unsuccessful.  As part of that case, the complainant was ordered to pay the respondents legal costs but did not do so.  Ultimately the respondent began to deduct this amount from the complainants’ wages without written his prior written consent.

However, this is a duplicate complaint and the decision should be read in conjunction with ADJ 43451.

The complainant submitted that deductions from his wages by his employer are unlawful.  The complainant submitted two claims covering respectively the 26 weeks and the 15 weeks prior to the claims’ submission.  The total amount of the deductions is €8200.  The complainant is seeking to be paid compensation of that

The complainant submitted that he is in employment with the respondent since November 1999 as Inspector.  He was subject to disciplinary proceedings and sought to be represented by his solicitor in these proceedings, and the employer refused.  The matter of legal representation in his disciplinary process was then subject to High Court proceedings and was later heard by the Supreme Court.  The complainant’s case was ultimately not successful.  In 2022 the Supreme Court issued a Certificate of Determination concerning legal costs wherein it was determined that the complainant owed the respondent €83,714.62.

On 25th August 2022, the employer wrote to the complainant advising him that they would begin deducting €200 from his wages, beginning on the first week of September.   He responded in writing, advising that he did not give his consent to this deduction.

Discussions have taken place between the parties whereby the complainant sought an alternative arrangement for payment, such as a lower deduction over a longer period of time. The employer did not agree to this.

The complainant submitted that the employer has made unlawful deductions from his wages, as the Payment of Wages Act, 1997 does not authorise this deduction.

The complainant submitted that it is not disputed that the Supreme Court has determined that he owes the sum of €83,714.62 to his employer. However, this does not grant the employer the right to deduct the sum from his wages, as such a deduction is not provided for by the Act. 

This is a duplicate complaint, and the decision should be read in conjunction with ADJ 43451.

The respondent submitted that the specific complaint is that the company are making a regular deduction from the complainant’s pay without his agreement.

The respondent submitted that in 2017 the company initiated disciplinary procedures against the complainant. A date was scheduled for the disciplinary hearing, but the complainant subsequently withdrew from participation in the disciplinary process and initiated High Court proceedings against the Company. The reason for these proceedings was that he was seeking to have legal representation at the disciplinary hearing. Those proceedings were finally disposed of in a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 11th November 2019.

The respondent submitted that following the conclusion of the legal proceedings the disciplinary process was reactivated by the company in December 2019. The process took place between February 2020 and September 2020 and a decision was issued in November 2020. Following an appeal of this decision to the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal the complainant returned to work in February 2021. 

The respondent submitted that as part of disposal of the legal proceedings the complainant was ordered to pay the company’s legal costs. Following an adjudication of costs, the final amount due to the company was confirmed as being €83,174.62.  

The respondent submitted that this is an unusual and unique case, and that the complainant has not engaged meaningfully with the company regarding his debt and that the company made a reasonable decision to commence recouping the money through a payroll deduction.

This is a duplicate complaint, and the decision should be read in conjunction with ADJ 43451.

This is a duplicate complaint, and the decision should be read in conjunction with ADJ 43451.

This is a duplicate complaint, and the decision should be read in conjunction with ADJ 43451.

Payment of Wages – Duplicate complaint