Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Robert Jackson

Sky Handling Partner Ltd

Representatives

Represented by Himself 

Andrea Montanelli, Peninsula

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-00061130-001

22/01/2024

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on October 2nd 2023 in a part-time role as a flight despatch operator.  He was paid €13.00 per hour plus a shift allowance of €1.00 per hour and an attendance allowance of €1.00 per hour.  The attendance allowance was payable quarterly.  The complainant resigned on January 1st 2024.  In his email to his supervisor at 5.30pm on that day, he said, “the current role is not working out for me.”   

On the form he sent to the WRC on January 22nd 2024, under the heading of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the complainant submitted the following complaints:

1.      He claims that he worked on two Sundays and he was not paid a Sunday allowance of €10.00 per day as set out in the staff handbook.

2.      He claims that he did not receive an attendance allowance of €1.00 per hour for the final quarter of 2023.

3.      He claims that the respondent made an illegal deduction of €200 from his wages for the cost of training.

4.      He claims that his employer deducted €50 from his wages for an airport security ID badge.

The complainant started work in October 2023.  In his evidence, he said that he understands that, 10 months previously, on February 14th 2023, a memo was sent to employees in the company to inform them that the Sunday allowance of €10.00 per day was replaced by a shift allowance of €1.00 per hour.  He said that he didn’t receive this memo because he joined the company in October 2023.  He said that the provision for a Sunday allowance of €10.00 has not been removed from the company handbook.

The complainant claims that there is no provision in his contract of employment to deduct the cost of training.  He said that he has not returned his airport ID badge, although, in an email to the HR manager on January 2nd 2024, he said that he would “make arrangements to return the ID and collect items that are still in the locker in station (sic).”

On January 1st 2024, when he sent the email to his supervisor letting him know that he was resigning, the complainant said that he didn’t say that he was resigning that day, but he was removed from the roster.  He said that, in his resignation letter and in the letter from the HR manager confirming his resignation, “there was no mention of working the shifts that I was rostered for.”  He claims that he is entitled to be paid a week’s pay in lieu of notice.  In his reply to the email from the HR manager on January 2nd in which she confirmed his resignation, the complainant did not mention his roster that week, but he referred to accrued holidays, the Sunday allowance and the attendance allowance.  He had been rostered to work from January 3rd.  On January 5th, he sent an email to the HR manager in which he claimed an entitlement to pay for the hours he was rostered over seven days from January 1st. 

In her submission, Ms Montanelli conceded that there was no provision in the complainant’s contract of employment to deduct €200.00 for the cost of training and that the respondent will pay this amount to him.  Ms Montanelli said that the airport security ID badge is issued to the company by Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) and must be returned to DAA when an employee leaves the company.  She said that there is a specific provision in the complainant’s contract employment to the effect that failure to return the badge will result in a deduction of €50 from his final wages.

Regarding the Sunday allowance, Ms Montanelli said that the Sunday allowance of €10 per day was replaced in February 2023 by a payment of €1.00 per hour for every hour worked.

Regarding the attendance allowance, Ms Montanelli said that the attendance allowance of €1.00 per hour is paid quarterly, subject to certain terms and conditions which are outlined in a memo issued to staff on February 14th 2023.  Ms Montanelli said that the complainant did not meet three of the criteria to qualify for payment of the allowance: 

1.      The allowance was applicable to the final quarter of 2023 from October 1st until December 31st.  The complainant commenced work on October 2nd.

2.      The allowance is conditional on full attendance in the quarter.  The complainant was absent from work on December 23rd 2023.

3.      Employees are required to be in employment on the date that the allowance is due for payment.  The payment for the fourth quarter of 2023 was due to be paid on January 19th, but the complainant left the company on January 1st.

At the hearing, Ms Montanelli informed me that the parties attended mediation and that an agreement had been reached with the complainant.  The complainant also referred to the mediation in his written submission.  Ms Montanelli said that she presented a document for the complainant to sign and he asked for a clause to be removed.  Although she replied and removed the clause, she said that the complainant decided to proceed to adjudication.  She said that, in her view, the hearing is a waste of time, because the matter has been settled.

I asked the complainant if he was in agreement that his complaint was settled.  He replied that it was settled, but that it had taken too long and that he wanted to proceed with the hearing.

The Relevant Law

This complaint has been submitted under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act.”).  Section 1 of the Act provides a definition of wages:

[W]ages in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including -

(a)  any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment, or otherwise, and,

(b)  any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice.

Section 5(6) addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(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.

It is apparent from this section that, where wages are properly payable, the failure of an employer to pay such wages is an illegal deduction.

Findings

On the form he submitted to the WRC on January 22nd 2024, the complainant made no mention of a complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.  In his submission of May 30th 2024, he said,

“My claim was also for the shifts that I was rostered for but as they informed me that the 1st was my final day that the 7 day notice period as per the contract was not being honoured by the respondent.”

In his evidence, the complainant said that he resigned on January 1st 2024 by sending an email to his supervisor.  I am satisfied therefore, that it was the complainant who informed his supervisor that he was resigning and not the other way around.  In his email of January 1st, he did not refer to any future departure date and he did not say that he was available for the remainder of the week.  When the HR manager confirmed his resignation the following day, he did not remind her that he was rostered for work on January 3rd.  I am satisfied that the complainant resigned from his job without giving his employer notice and that no wages are due in relation to notice.

The respondent has agreed that the deduction of €200 in relation to the cost of training should not have been deducted from the complainant’s wages and I understand that it is their intention to refund this amount to him.  The complainant said that he intends to return the airport ID security badge, and I understand that, in accordance with his contract of employment, as soon as it is returned, the deduction of €50 will be refunded.

With regard to the claim for €10 per day for working on two Sundays, I am satisfied that the Sunday allowance of €10 per day was replaced by the shift allowance of €1.00 per hour for all hours worked from Monday to Sunday.  While the Sunday allowance has not been removed from the company handbook, this does not confer a legal entitlement on the complainant.  The shift allowance of €1.00 per hour is provided for in his contract of employment.

The remaining issue for consideration is the complainant’s claim that he is entitled to the attendance allowance of €1.00 per hour for all hours worked in the final quarter of 2023.  The respondent has shown that he did not meet all the qualification criteria for this allowance and I am satisfied that, when he resigned on January 1st 2024, the attendance allowance was not properly payable.

Conclusion

In conclusion therefore, I am satisfied that the €200 training cost which was deducted from the complainant’s final wages was an illegal deduction.  I find that the wages in relation to pay in lieu of notice, the ID badge, the Sunday allowance and the attendance allowance are not properly payable.

I have decided that one aspect of this complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is well founded.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €200 deducted from his final wages in respect of the cost of training

Pay in lieu of notice, pay for training, deductions from wages