Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Susan  Dwane

Bridget O'Sullivan, Beata Andreas, Ann Rogers, Blazej Kaczorowski, Sebastian Emmerling & Chenelle Dennehy as the Committee Of Rockboro School Association

Representatives

Conor White Comyn Kelleher Tobin

 Ms Bridget O’Sullivan Chairperson/Trustee, Rockboro School Association

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-00059158-001

01/10/2023

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

CA-00059158-002

01/10/2023

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

CA-00059158-003

01/10/2023

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

CA-00059158-004

01/10/2023

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

CA-00059158-005

01/10/2023

The Complainant was employed as Principal and Teacher of Rockboro School from 1 October 1990 until cessation of her employment on 7 November 2023. Her monthly salary was €4166.66; net €3035.92 The Complainant submits she was not paid her monthly salary on various dates contrary to section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”).

The Respondent representative wished it would be noted that she and her fellow members of the Rockboro School Association, were parents and volunteers. The Respondent representative submits that the Respondent accepts that there is no dispute regarding the claims under the Act.

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation. She listed her various complaints as follows:

CA-00059158-001:

For the month of April 2023 although she was furnished with a payslip which suggested that her full salary was paid (€4166.67 gross, €3,035.94 net), but she submits she  was not paid her full salary for April 2023. She received €2,500 into her bank account for April 2023 salary due to her, the first tranche on 28 April 2023 of €1,500 and a second payment of €1,000 on 12 May 2023. The outstanding net amount was €535.93. Her payment date was the last Friday of the month.

CA-00059158-002:

For the month of May 2023 although she was furnished with a payslip which suggested that her full salary was paid (€4166.67 gross, €3,035.94 net),  she was not paid any salary payment  for May 2023.

CA-00059158-003:

She received no salary payment for the month of June 2023 (€4166.67 gross, €3,035.94 net).

CA-00059158-004:

She received no salary payment for the month of July 2023 (€4166.67 gross, €3,035.94 net.)

CA-00059158-005:

She received no salary payment for the month of August 2023  (€4166.67 gross, €3,035.94 net.)

The Respondent’s representative wished to have it noted that the  current situation at Rockboro school  does not reflect the immense service and value it has provided over the past 50 years, nor the value it will continue to bring to the community. She emphasised that the current situation the school finds itself in does not honour the sacrifice and efforts of those who volunteered, fundraised, and worked to purchase land and establish the first non-denominational, co-educational school in the area to benefit the community.

The Respondent representative concedes that the complaints under the Act are not being rebutted. However, the representative  gave a comprehensive account of the financial difficulties afflicting the school before its closure. She outlined that both she and the other committee members were acting in a voluntary capacity and strenuously sought to keep the private  school  operational. However, their efforts were in vain, but she wished to emphasise that  paying any amount that might be due from this decision  would be exceedingly difficult for the Respondent under the circumstances.

The Applicable Legislation

Section 5 of the act in its applicable parts provides:

(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.

(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 previously mentioned) 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.

Redress is provided at section 6 of the Act where it states:

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  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 tips or gratuities as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deductions therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the 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 presented to paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

(2)

(a) An adjudication officer shall not give a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to a deduction or payment referred to in that subsection at any time after the commencement of hearing of proceedings in a court brought by the employee concerned in respect of the deduction or payment.

(b) An employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount in proceedings in a court in respect of such a deduction or payment as aforesaid at any time after an adjudication officer has given a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the deduction or payment.

It is well established  that adjudication officers have been conferred with jurisdiction to deal with all complaints concerning non-payment of wages, where wages are  defined in section 1 of the Act  as “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment…” It was the uncontested evidence of the Complainant that she was not paid her salary on various dates as outlined in her evidence therefore I find that all her complaints as listed were well founded.

CA-00059158-001:

I find that the complaint as outlined above  was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum  of the net amount of wages due, which  is  €535.93.

CA-00059158-002:

I find that the complaint as outlined above was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum  of the net amount of wages due, which  is  €3035.94.

CA-00059158-003:

I find that the complaint as outlined above was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum  of the net amount of wages due, which  is  €3035.94.

CA-00059158-004:

I find that the complaint as outlined above was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum  of the net amount of wages due, which  is  €3035.94.

CA-00059158-005:

I find that the complaint as outlined above  was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum  of the net amount of wages due, which  is  €3035.94.

Payment of Wages Act 1991