Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Forde

Panscape Partition Systems Ltd

Representatives

JAMES LUCEY & SONS LLP

 Peninsula

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-00064537-001

03/07/2024

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation.

Mr. Dave Ryan, Director of the Respondent gave evidence on Affirmation. Submissions were received in advance of the hearing and shared with the Complainant.

It was the Complainant’s complaint that he has an ongoing dispute with the Respondent for payment of travel to and from work which forms part of his contract of employment.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a construction company, on 7 April 2000. He works on the Sisk site in Plassey Technology Park, Limerick, but resides in County Limerick.

The Complainant’s evidence concerns his employer’s failure to pay travel allowance and leave, which were agreed upon as specific terms in his employment contract. He earns a gross weekly wage of €1,290 at a rate of €20.90 per hour. The agreement provided for two hours of travel pay per day, including coverage on bank holidays and annual leave. However, the Complainant has not received the daily €20.90 travel payment since 5 January 2024, and these losses are ongoing. From Friday, 5 January 2024, to Wednesday, 3 July 2024—a total of 180 days—the Complainant is owed €3,762 up to 3 July 2024.

The Complainant stated that this is the fourth complaint he has raised on the same issue against his employer due to the ongoing non-payment. He relied upon previous WRC decisions ADJ-00044843, ADJ-00033161, ADJ-00048709, and Labour Court determination No. PWD236.

Mr Ryan provided evidence that he was unable to afford paying the Complainant for travel time after John Sisk & Sons ceased reimbursing the Respondent for the additional time in 2021. He stated that the Respondent could not afford the additional two hours’ wages per day to cover travel time but has been paying one hour of travel time per day since April 2021.

Mr Ryan submitted that he was willing to increase the Complainant’s hourly rate to €24. The Respondent argued that the Complainant was not entitled to this payment, as it did not fall within the definition of wages under Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

In cross-examination, it was suggested to Mr Ryan that an increase of €2.10 per hour over 8 hours would equate to €84 extra per week, compared to the €104.50 for the additional one hour’s travel time.

The Labour Court has decided in favour of the Complainant in this complaint, as has the Workplace Relations Commission on three previous occasions. The Respondent’s submission regarding the definition of wages in this case is rejected, as it has been repeatedly determined that the payment is contractual. Consequently, I find that the payment is contractual and that the complaint is well-founded.

I fully agree with the Adjudication Officer in ADJ-00048709 that the Respondent’s repeated failure to pay the Complainant’s wages, causing additional cost and inconvenience for what is now the fifth time, “is quite unnecessary and reprehensible.”

In terms of redress, Section 6(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides:

“6. (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 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 referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

The Complainant submitted his net weekly wage is €1,032.00 . The total amount of payment sought is €3,762 based on a gross figure of €20.90 a day x 180 days. The Complainant did not bring individual complaints in terms of each week but as a lump sum of 180 days.

I direct the Respondent to pay the employee compensation of the amount of €2,064 which is twice the net sum of the payment that should have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment (Section 6 (1) (a) (ii) and (b)),  which I consider reasonable in the particular circumstances of this facts of this case together with the repeated and ongoing breach by the Respondent.

Payment of wages