Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gareth  Kirwan

Winepoint Ltd  trading as Winemason Ltd

Representatives

Andrea Montanelli

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-00062235-001

14/03/2024

The Complainant worked for the Respondent wine merchant until January 2024 when he voluntarily left to pursue another job. The Complainant had undertaken a Wine Spirit Education Trust (WSET) Level 4 Diploma course in 2023. This was paid for by the Respondent in line with a signed agreement between both parties that the fees would be refunded in full if the Complainant left within a year of completing the course.

The Respondent deducted the balance of the Complainant’s fees from his final payslip the result of which was that the Complainant received no final salary.

Mr Gareth Kirwan attended the hearing accompanied by his wife and gave evidence under oath.

He believes that the Respondent behaved unreasonably in withholding his final months wages and left him in financial distress.

He did enter into a training agreement with the Respondent which would require him to pay back the costs of this course if he resigned within a year of completion. This agreement did not provide for a clear method of repayment.

Initially he went to the Respondent’s Managing Director to discuss handover and asked for a payment plan. This was refused and they told him full amount would be taken from his final wages. He outlined the problems this would cause for him but was told that this was going to be the course of action the Respondent would take.

They deducted his wages in totality.

The Complainant referred to ADJ-00019646  A trainee accountant v An accountancy firm  which followed the position set out in In Ryanair Ltd v Downey [2006] ELR 347 that Section 5(2) of the Payment of Wages Act requires any deduction for goods or services supplied to, or provided for, the employee by the employer be “fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.”

He argues the Respondent’s actions weren’t fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. He was fully prepared to pay back the fees on a payment plan instead he was left in debt to cover his basic expenses.  

Ms Montelli made written and oral submissions on behalf of the Respondent.

She submits that the case is not on all fours with ADJ-00019646, In that matter a trainee accountant had attracted a higher billing rate for completing exams. This is not the same situation.  

Ms Barbara Boyle the Respondent’s Managing Director gave evidence under oath.

The Complainant made the decision to do the course and they supported him for staff retention reasons. They still haven’t been able to replace the Complainant.

He didn’t need to do the course and it was his decision. The Respondent has a general interest in professional education and tries to support it. However it was in no way a requirement of his role or in their view immediately beneficial to his role. There was no particuar advantage for the company.

The Complainant got an offer from a competitor and they made a counter offer which he refused. They accepted his resignation and implemented the training agreement. He wasn’t ready to make the payment so she implemented the agreement.

The Complainant mentioned needing to take a loan to cover creche and mortgage. He was flustered and agitated in that meeting.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act regulates deductions from wages. I have inserted the relevant parts below.

(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

………c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

 unless— (i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee,

and (ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee),

The Complainant’s final salary was for a partially worked month. It was calculated as 2,008.11 and deducted in full for the balance of the fees.

The Complaianant voluntarily entered into an agreement with the Respondent for them to pay his fees for a course. A  term of that agreement was that he would refund the fees if he left within a year of finishing the course. He left before he even completed the course and obtained a better salary elsewhere.

I am satisfied that this course was not a requirement of his role and I am cognisant of the Respondent’s representative’s submissions that this case is different from ADJ-00019646 as in that case the employer was paying for professional exams which were required and for which they could bill the employee at a higher rate.

I also note the Complainant’s evidence that he did not dispute the fees were owed and sought a payment plan. He was shocked that his income was essentially stopped without limited notice and that this put him under financial pressure.

On review of the legislation and, in particular 5.2.b.i the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), I am of the view that a deduction would have been permitted from the Complainant’s final salary but a deduction of the entire salay is not reasonable where there was a alternative of a payment plan open to the Respondent.

In keeping with the above logic I determine that the complaint is well founded and that the Respondent should pay the Complainant an amount less than the full wages owing to them on cessation.

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1500.