Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kieran  McCreary

Capita Customer Solutions Ltd.

Representatives

 Self-represented (assisted by his mother Ms. Gayle van der Merwe)

Emma Quinn, Solicitor of Eversheds Sutherland

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-00055725-001

26/03/2023

The Complainant filed a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, in relation to a series of deductions, and subsequent repayments and rectifications that were made to his wages pertaining to paid sick leave, and which occurred over a period of months. He raised the matter internally, ultimately escalating it through an internal grievance process.

While the Respondent acknowledges that a number of errors, and they were regrettable, and acknowledges the impact on the Complainant, it submits that the matter was fully resolved six (6) months prior to the date of WRC hearing, and as such, the Adjudication Officer has no further jurisdiction in relation to same, under the applicable sections of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant’s complaint was filed with the WRC on 26/3/2023.

As per the complaint form:

Week commencing 4/7/2022, the Complainant submits that he advised his manager that he needed to take time off due to his mental health. He submits that he discussed this in detail with his manager and it was confirmed that employees of the Respondent company are paid for any time off if they are able to provide sick certs, i.e. paid sick leave.

The Complainant submits that the following week, he contacted a GP who signed him off work for two (2) weeks, and he submits that he provided sick certs for the days in question. He further submits that his manager confirmed that he would be paid in full in line with the company policy.

The Complainant submits that when he received his pay slips, on the 23/8/2022, which pertained to pay for the month of July, he observed that he was docked pay for unpaid sick leave that included the 14 days covered by the doctor’s medical certificate. He said that he reached out to his manager the same day to enquire as to why this had happened. He submitted that the conversation entailed him advising that he had been incorrectly paid and displaying his pay slip, of which his manager took a screenshot and advised that he would raise this (escalate) to his manager to be rectified. A screenshot of the pay slip was submitted: This showed a deduction of €1,231.61 for unpaid sickness.

On 29/8/2022, the Complainant followed up with his manager – as he had not heard back - and was advised that due to the bank holiday in the UK, no one was available to review it, but it would be followed up with, the next day. The Complainant informed his manager that this was a cause of stress to him, as he had bills that needed to be paid and this would affect his mental state if it was prolonged.

On 30/8/2022, the Complainant received communication from his manager that the ticket that had been opened had been updated. As the Complainant did not have access to this ticket, he asked for the updated ticket, and it was confirmed that he would receive the money in the next two (2) working days. Once again, he stressed the urgency of this matter.

On 1/9/2022, the Complainant received a CHAP’S payment of €770. He queried this with his manager as he wanted to be sure this was correct as the deduction originally was for an amount of €1,200. He also submits that he receive no payslip in respect of the rectification payment. He submits that he was advised that as he was off for fourteen (14) days and only got paid for ten (10) days’ sick leave that this was the correct amount to be paid back.

On the 22/9/2022, the Complainant received his payslips pertaining to the August period and he noticed that he had been deducted the amount that he was previously paid in the CHAP’S payment as a back payment to Capita. He submits that he flagged this with his manager on the day and his manager advised that he would need some time before looking into it with the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that his manager explained that he felt this was correct, as the company had advanced the Complainant an amount and now it had taken it back. The Complainant submits that he argued that this was not an advance of salary but rather a correction to a mistake that had been made. He submits that they (he and his manager) left it there, as they thought that maybe affecting it again would be a bad idea as there was a potential for Capita to make another mistake, and he would just go without the money until the next month.

On 29/9/2022, the Complainant submits that he started to panic that he would not have the required funds to pay all his bills. So, he flagged this again as a concern and went above his own manager’s head to his manager’s manager. The Complainant submits that his manager’s manger advised him that what he had previously been advised was incorrect and that first, he should have been paid for all the sick days and not only ten (10) - that as a Capita employee, he was entitled to such and that Capita payroll team had made an error by taking back the payment. He submits his manager’s manager told him that he was, in fact, entitled to that payment. So, he requested it be paid to him again and stressed the strain the process was having on his mental health once again. He submits that he was also advised that it would be reviewed before the October payslip to ensure this does not happen again.

Following this conversation, the Complainant submits that he went back to his own manager and informed him of the conversation and the errors that had been made. Following this, he submits that he was also advised that Capita do not pay for the entire sickness and some of this needs to be applied for in an illness benefit form, but as he had not been advised this at the time, he was too late to make this application.

The Complainant’s manager had advised that the request for the money would be put through on Friday, 30/9/2022. The Complainant submits that he followed up on Tuesday, 4/10/2022 for any updates as he had heard nothing. The email stated that CHAP’S payments are only scheduled on Wednesdays and that it would be put forward on that Wednesday to be paid. The Complainant submits that he received the money on 7/10/2022 in the amount of €800.54. The Complainant submits that once again, he received no payslip for the rectification payment.

On 24/10/2022, the Complainant received his pay slips for the October pay period, and submits that he again saw that the same deduction had been made. He submits that he went straight to his manager to advise of this. He submits that he also asked who he could speak to about making a formal complaint with regards to this matter as he was upset and it had affected him for three (3) months in a row, at that point. He submits that he was advised, at this time, that the matter was forwarded to a HR person to personally deal with the actions involved.

On 1/11/2022, the Complainant submits that he still had not been provided with an update and had not been paid correctly. He received a payment of €880.61 on 2/11/2022 after making a complaint via email to his manager and his manager’s manager as well as having a call with the HR person involved.

On 8/11/2022, the Complainant advised his manager that he was struggling a lot with his mental health and was going to reach out to his psychologist to see if he could get an appointment.

The Complainant submits that he was informed by HR personnel that a check was completed in October to ensure that this never happens again.

On 10/10/2022, the Complainant was advised a check was complete and there were no errors, so the issue was resolved.

However, the Complainant submits that on 22/11/2022, the pay slips for October were provided and once again the deduction had been made. The Complainant submits that he flagged this directly to HR personnel and to his manager. He submits that they advised that an attempt would be made to ensure he would be paid correctly on 25/11/2022. No further correspondence has been provided.

The Complainant submits that he was keen to resolve this internally, but it was having a clear impact on him, creating a huge amount of stress, and therefore impacting his mental health. He submits that while he appreciates the engagement from his manager to date, it is essential that this is resolved appropriately and finally as soon as possible. He submits that he submitted an internal grievance in December 2022, but the grievance was concluded, and he has yet to receive any payslips for these payments. He submits that then subsequently, on 24/3/2023, he received another payslip with a deduction of €350 and has been advised that this is due to him claiming social welfare for his sickness in July 2022, which he did not. He submits the fact that he did not was documented in the report. He submits, that, at the date of submission of his complaint to the WRC, he was still without this money – this has since been remedied as of May 2023.

1.         INTRODUCTION

1.1        Mr Kieran McCreary (the “Complainant”) has been employed by Capita Customer Solutions Limited (the “Respondent”), since 22 February 2021. 

1.2        The Complainant filed a complaint CA-00055725 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 on 26 March 2023 against the Respondent. 

2                   PRELIMINARY POINTS

(i) No deductions in respect of the Complainant’s wages are outstanding.

2.2         The Complainant has submitted his claim under section 6 of the Act on the basis of deductions that were made from his payslips.

2.3        The Respondent acknowledges that due to payroll errors that were outside of the Respondent’s control, there were a number of deductions mistakenly applied to the Complainant’s salary. However, the Respondent submits that the Complainant has been repaid all sums due in respect of any outstanding deductions.

2.4        The details of all deductions and repayments from September 2022 to May 2023 are outlined in the Payment Details document submitted. As of May 2023, the Respondent has repaid the Complainant all sums due to him. This is further evidenced in each monthly payslip received by the Complainant during the above period (which have also been submitted). 

2.5          Section 6 of the Act provides:

“(1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding-

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i)           in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii)          in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

Or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.” 

2.6         As the Respondent has rectified the deductions made from the Complainant’s salary, it is not possible for the Complainant to seek redress under Section 6 of the Act.  

(ii)The Complainant has received all payslips from each monthly period 

2.7         As part of the above Claim, The Complainant argues that he has not received payslips of which specifically outline deductions made to his wages. 

2.8        The Respondent submits that the Complainant has consistently received monthly payslips throughout his employment, including during the period between September 2022 to May 2023 (submitted at Tab 3 of the Respondent’s booklet). As evidenced, these payslips contain all such deductions and repayments made to the Complainant. 

2.9          Section 4 of the Act provides:

“(1) An employer shall give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing specifying clearly the gross amount of the wages payable to the employee and the nature and amount of any deduction therefrom and the employer shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates and the statement are treated confidentially by the employer and his agents and by any other employees.

(2) A statement under this section shall be given to the employee concerned—

(a)          if the relevant payment is made by a mode specified in section 2 (1) (f), as soon as may be thereafter,

(b)         if the payment is made by a mode of payment specified in regulations under section 2 (1) (h), at such time as may be specified in the regulations,

(c)          if the payment is made by any other mode of payment, at the time of the payment.

(3) Where a statement under this section contains an error or omission, the statement shall be regarded as complying with the provisions of this section if it is shown that the error or omission was made by way of a clerical mistake or was otherwise made accidentally and in good faith.

2.10      The Respondent has complied with its legal requirements under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act does not place any requirement or obligation on the Respondent to provide the Complainant with further payslips, in addition to his monthly payslip. 

2.11      It is respectfully submitted that on the basis that the Respondent has complied with its requirements in respect of Section 4 of the Act, it is not possible for the Complainant to seek redress under Section 4 of the Act.

3              CONCLUSION

3.1        The Respondent respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed on the basis that the payroll error that resulted in deductions to the Complainant’s salary was rectified six months ago. The Complainant has received monthly payslips during the duration of his employment, which detail all deductions and repayments made to him in any given month.

I find that while the Complainant was the subject of an unfortunate, and very stressful, series of errors by his employer, which are most regrettable, those matters have been fully rectified prior to the matter coming to hearing at the WRC. No monies are outstanding or owing to the Complainant, which was acknowledged by the Complainant at hearing. I therefore find that I have no further jurisdiction in relation to that aspect of the complaint filed.

I further find that I have no jurisdiction in relation to the matter of payslips as set out under s. 4 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I find for the Respondent. For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Deductions; Error; Repayments; Payslips;