Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Stuart  Gillon

Motorwaycare Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00056606-001

11/05/2023

The Complainant commenced employment on 2nd September 2021. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time employee, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €855.00. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 5th May 2023.

On 11th May 2023, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his former employer had made an illegal deduction of 855.00, or his final week’s payment, from his wages. In denying this allegation, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not work for the week in question and the payment in question was not due and owing to the Complainant.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 14th November 2023. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the Complainant submitted that he attended for a job interview with an alternative employer on 26th April 2023. Following this date, the Complainant was removed from the Respondent’s roster and was not provided with any working hours. 

On 2nd May 2023, the Complainant informed his employer that he had been successful in his interview and gave one week’s notice of his interned resignation. Thereafter the Respondent continued to fail to assign any hours to him and he was effectively “frozen out” of the company.

By submission, the Complainant stated that the Respondent owed payment for one week of notice, to the value of €855.00.

In denying the Complainant’s allegation, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was absent from work on Tuesday 25th April 2023 as he stated that he had to prepare for an interview the following day. Thereafter, the Respondent was unable to contact the Complainant and ascertain his availability for work. The Complainant’s line manager sought to meet with him on 2nd May 2023, to ascertain his position regarding his role. In such circumstances, the Respondent did not schedule any working hours for the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to attend the meeting of 2nd May and gave notice of his resignation the following day.  

Having regard to the foregoing, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was paid for each hour worked and that no further payments are due and owing to him.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, defines “wages” as “any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including…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”.

In the matter of Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2019 No. 83 MCA], McGrath J stated that when considering complaints under the present Act,

“Central to the Court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments”.

Regarding the factual matrix presented by the parties, it is apparent that the Complainant attended for an interview with a competitor on 26th April 2023. Thereafter, it is apparent that the Complainant was successful in that interview and he gave one week’s notice of his resignation. During this period, it is apparent that the Complainant was not provided with any working hours and received no payment. In this regard it is noted that it is common case that the Complainant was paid for every hour actually worked and the the essence of the present dispute is that the Respondent allegedly removed the Complainant from the roster without cause. Without prejudice to this position, the fact remains that the Complainant did not work after the 26th April 2023 and as a consequence of the same, was not entitled to any wages in this regard.

In the case of Larkin Unemployment Centre -v- Deborah Eustace PWD22, the Labour Court held that an employee must actually work assigned hours for wages to be deemed properly payable for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act.

In circumstances whereby the Complainant was paid for each hour actually worked, I find that that there has been no deduction from wages that may be deemed to be “properly payable” for the purpose of the present Act. As a consequence of the foregoing, I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Wages, properly payable , hours worked