Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Chousein  Almomani

Polyclinic Medical & Diagnostic Center

Representatives

Nawar Asaad Assad

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-00051366-002

20/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00051366-003

20/06/2022

The Complainant alleges that sum of money were unlawfully deducted from his wages.

The Complainant is a Dentist, and he has been working as a dentist since 1992. He worked in Athens, Cyprus and in Ireland. He specialises is Maxillofacial surgery and has a PHD is bone and teeth implants. He has never had a complaint in all the years that he has been working.   He is sorry that he met with an employer who does not believe in the basic medical procedures that should be given to patients.

He was contact by Dr. Bugtur through a Greek doctor friend in August 2021. He was informed that he was needed urgently to attend to a large number of patients in his surgery. At that time, he urged him to come to Ireland. He sent him a primary contract stating the monthly payment would be €6,000. He rented a property for him and his family to live in while he was here in Ireland. Dr. Bugtur paid the deposit of €1,000 to secure the property. He arrived in Ireland on the 13th January 2022 when his children had finished in school. He stayed in Dublin for two days and then he travelled down to Limerick to the house that he still lives in today. After two more days he contacted Dr. Bugtur to inform him that he was settled in Ireland and was ready to commence work. He was asked by Dr. Bugtur for a copy of his medical insurance and a PPS number. He was informed that he could not start until he provided this information. He did not have medical insurance or a PPS number. He made enquires as to how he would get a PPS no. here in Ireland and what medical insurance he would be able to secure. He asked Dr. Bugtur for some assistance and/or information in relation to what insurance companies he should contact as he didn’t know any in Ireland. He is of the opinion that all of this was just a delaying tactic as the clinic wasn’t ready yet.

On the 15th February 2022 to called him to give him the information he had requested. Dr. Bugtur then stated that he needed to register with the Dental Association. He had been registered since 2018. You just need to re-register annually.

On the 15th Dr. Bugtur came to collect him at his house and he took him to the clinic. When there he discovered it lacked basic things. There was no nurse to provide assistance and the basic tools required to carry out the role was missing. The Complainant stated that he needed a nurse to provide the correct medical service and to reduce the risk of infection etc. Dr. Bugtur showed the complainant on his laptop that he was in the process of employing a nurse to assist him.  

He commenced working on the 30th March 2022. The delay was due to the fact that the clinic was not ready to open until then. He had previously been informed that the clinic had been open since 2018.

No patients came to the clinic. The Complainant asked why there were no patients. He was informed that during the pandemic the clinic was closed, and all the patients left. He was told to have some patience, and the patients would come back. Then he contacted a company that provide implants. They came to the clinic to discuss their products. He decided to use their products. When he began to use the products, he realised that the equipment in the clinic was outdated and was compatible. He requested that the equipment be brought up to date. Dr. Bugtur told him to use the expired materials. He was not happy about that. Even the food in the kitchen had expired.

The Complainant refused to use the expired materials. It is against the guidelines to use expired products. When he insisted on having a nurse, Dr. Bugtur stated that he himself or his wife would come and help. Neither of them are trained and wouldn’t have had an idea about how to prepare products or sterilise the instruments. What he was being asked to do was inhuman and it all amounted to an inappropriate treatment of patients.

The relationship between himself and Dr. Bugtur started to decline. Dr. Bugtur wasn’t paying his salary in line with his contract. He stated that he would have to pay his own tax out of what he was paid. That was not in line with the contract. Dr Bugtur was only interested in financial gain and had no interest in providing a safe and professional service to the patients. The Complainant refused to participate in such behaviour.

The last thing the Complainant wanted was to have a situation like this with his Employer. All he wanted was to be paid what was due and owing to him. When he asked Dr. Bugtur about what was due to him he said he would make sure that he would never work in Ireland again. Thankfully, he is still working now.

He received € 11,000.00. Some of that was paid in cash and partly through his bank account. His understanding is that the payment of €6,000 monthly was the net figure. That was just about enough for him and his family to live in Ireland. In any event he didn’t receive enough money to pay tax. If he had been paid the correct amount, he would have paid the tax at the end of the year when the tax fell due.

The Complainant understanding that he was an employee. However, when he got advice from his accountant told him to pay the tax due himself.

The Respondent refused to pay his tax PRSI etc for him. He did tell him that he would prefer if he established his own business and pad his own tax etc. The Complainant said that he was employed on a  three year contract, however he didn’t know anything about taxes here in Ireland but he did know that the Employer should have been paying it.

15.01.2022 he came to Limerick, Ireland. He started on the 01.03.2022. At the start he did not pay any tax. He thought the Employer was doing that. It was agreed he would get €6000.00 per month net. He realised there were issue with his tax in March 2022. He finished up with the Respondent on 14th June 2022. He is owed in total €10,000.00. The total due was €21,000.00,  he was paid  €11,000.00 that leaves a balance of €10,000.00 net. He did pay tax on the €6,000.00 on the advice of his accountant. He is also owed the sum of €883.33 for the months of March, April and May.

The Respondent appeared on the first day of the hearing. He did not appear on the 2nd day. Contact was made with is secretary who made attempts to contact him, but he was not answering his phone. She stated that he was absent from work yesterday as he was ill. The WRC requested that she try and make contact with him to ask if someone could come online to explain the situation and perhaps seek a short adjournment. He was given 30 minutes to come on- line and seek a postponement but he did not appear.

The Complainant is a dentist. He was contacted by the Respondent in late 2021 and asked if he would come and work for him in his clinic in Limerick. He was sent a contract dated the 23.12 21. The contract stated that the commencement date was the 15.02.2022. The Complainant arrived in Ireland on the 15.01.2022. He travelled down to Limerick and met with the Dr. Bugtur. The Complainant stated that he started working on the 01.02.2022 however from the documentation submitted it would seem that it was actually the 15.02.2022.

The three year fixed term contact stated that the Complainant was to be paid €72,000.00 gross per annum. The Complainant stated that he was to be paid €6,000.00 net per month. However, based on his contractual terms he is mistaken. It is clear that the figure was €6,000.00 gross per month. The Complainant became aware that the Respondent was not paying any PRSI, PAYE or USC in relation to his salary. He took advice on that and was advised that he should pay it to keep himself right. The Respondent was paying the Complainant in a haphazard way. I note from his bank statements and his Chapter 4 that he only received the sum of €11, 410.00  gross up to the 15th June, 2022 when he left his employment.  € 6,000.00 gross per months minus €1,503 income tax, €240.00 PRSI and € 216.00 USC amounts to a next figure of € 4040.00.00 per month. The Complainant should have received € 14,140.00 net for the time he was working for the Respondent. He received €11,410 .00 gross from which the tax was paid. The amount deducted from the Complainant’s salary was € 2,730.00 net.

I also note from the documentation that three amounts were deducted from the Complainant’s salary in the amount of €883.33 amounting to € 2,649.99.

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.

(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), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(3) (a) An employer shall not receive a payment from an employee in respect of a matter referred to in subsection (2) unless, if the payment were a deduction, it would comply with that subsection.

(b) Where an employer receives a payment in accordance with paragraph (a) he shall forthwith give a receipt for the payment to the employee.

(4) A term of a contract of employment or other agreement whereby goods or services are supplied to or provided for an employee by an employer in consideration of the making of a deduction by the employer from the wages of the employee or the making of a payment to the employer by the employee shall not be enforceable by the employer unless the supply or provision and the deduction or payment complies with subsection (2).

(5) Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

(II) any overpayment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and

(ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment,

or

(b) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, in consequence of any disciplinary proceedings if those proceedings were held by virtue of a statutory provision, or

(c) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee in pursuance of a requirement imposed on the employer by virtue of any statutory provision to deduct and pay to a public authority, being a Minister of the Government, the Revenue Commissioners or a local authority for the purposes of the F11[Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014)], amounts determined by that authority as being due to it from the employee, if the deduction is made in accordance with the relevant determination of that authority, or

(d) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee in pursuance of any arrangements—

(i) which are in accordance with a term of a contract made between the employer and the employee to whose inclusion in the contract the employee has given his prior consent in writing, or

(ii) to which the employee has otherwise given his prior consent in writing,

and under which the employer deducts and pays to a third person amounts, being amounts in relation to which he has received a notice in writing from that person stating that they are amounts due to him from the employee, if the deduction is made in accordance with the notice and the amount thereof is paid to the third person not later than the date on which it is required by the notice to be so paid, or

(e) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by his employer, where the employee has taken part in a strike or other industrial action and the deduction is made or the payment has been required by the employer on account of the employee’s having taken part in that strike or other industrial action, or

(f) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee with his prior consent in writing, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where the purpose of the deduction or payment is the satisfaction (whether wholly or in part) of an order of a court or tribunal requiring the payment of any amount by the employee to the employer, or

(g) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee where the purpose of the deduction is the satisfaction (whether wholly or in part) of an order of a court or tribunal requiring the payment of any amount by the employer to the court or tribunal or a third party out of the wages of the employee.

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any 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.

I am satisfied based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant together with the documentation submitted that unlawful deductions in the amount of €2,730.00 and € 2,649.99 were made. On that basis I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of € 5,379.99.

No evidence was adduced in relation to the complaint CA 51366- 002. That complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.  

CA 51366 -002 The Complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant € 5,379.99.

CA 51366 -003 The Complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.