Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Distribution Company

Representatives

John Cleary SIPTU

Emily Maverley, IBEC

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-00058094-002

04/08/2023

Following an incident in May 2023, the Complainant stated that the Respondent imposed a sanction of demotion on him which resulted in his wages being unlawfully reduced.

The Complainant stated that he was seeking payment of the unlawful deduction from his wages of approximately €100 per week that the Respondent had made since his duties as Acting Line Manager (ALM) were removed from him in May 2023. It was asserted that the deduction in wages was imposed following an unfair and disproportionate disciplinary process, which was unreasonable in all the circumstances. It was also highlighted that he never consented in writing to a deduction from his wages.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant ceased in the position of ALM effective 18 May 2023 and was subsequently paid in accordance with the activities of General Operative (GWO), the role he was reverted to. No further ALM activities were fulfilled by the Complainant that could justify the Respondent remunerating him in accordance with this position.

Section 1(i) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines ‘wages’ in relation to an employee as: 

“…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”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated that a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. 

In determining what wages are properly payable in the instant case, I note firstly that the Complainant’s role changed on foot of the disciplinary sanction, and that he resumed his position of GWO on a full-time basis thereafter. As he was therefore operating as a GWO on a full-time basis and was no longer acting as an ALM, the only wages “properly payable” to him were those that he was entitled to be paid as a GWO.

I also noted that his contract of employment stated that “In addition to your basic salary, you will be paid the sum of €25 when you are required to act up”. Accordingly, there is no question that a deduction was made from his wages because he was not required to act up after 18 May 2023 when the disciplinary sanction was imposed.

Considering the foregoing points, I find that the complaint is not well founded.  

I find that the complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.