Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eugene  McGourty

Aramark

Representatives

 SIPTU

 IBEC

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-00061607-001

16/02/2024

The complainant was employed by Graham Asset Management Limited in March 2010 as a Maintenance Operative. His main duties involved carrying out maintenance works in, and around the premises and at that time was paid fortnightly.

In December 2013, the complainant transferred to the respondent, Aramark In 2014, which changed the pay cycle from fortnightly to monthly. The complainant was now paid approximately €2,530 every month after deductions

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

The complainant worked with the respondent until his retirement on  September 30th, 2023 and contends that his pay cycle is from 25th to 25th of every month.

In September 2023, he submits that he worked on the 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th of that month.

On 25th September 2023, when he received his pay slip and discovered that the extra four days was not included in the pay slips (which was supposed to be his final pay slip), he contacted management and was left with the impression that any days worked after the 25th of each month goes into the next pay cycle.

When no payment was forthcoming, he asked his trade union to contact management to try and resolve the situation.

The respondent denies that there has been any breach of the Payment of Wages Act.

At no point has the complainant received salary below his contractual salary.

When calculating his average hourly pay for all hours worked, he received an average hourly rate of €17.39. He was always paid monthly on the 25th of each month for that full month running from the first day to the last day of the calendar month.

The complainant did not work an additional week as he claims as he was fully paid for the month of September up to and including the last day of that month.

The issue here is relatively simple.

The complainant (and all his colleagues) received their monthly wages on the 25th day of the month.

He does not dispute this, except insofar as he says that for the last month of his employment, he concludes, (or more accurately assumes) that the days between the payment date and the end of the month were not paid for.

The respondent insists that he, and all employees were paid for that full month on the 25th and that the complainant is confusing the payment date with the period in respect of which the payment was being made.

The amount paid to him that month was the same as he had been paid in the previous months. Therefore, I find that he was paid for a full month and no further wages are outstanding.

For the sake of completeness, the complainant was asked whether on first transferring to monthly pay he had been given a full month’s pay, or merely to the 25th of that month.

In theory, a positive answer to that question could mean that in each succeeding month there was an element of ‘carry over’ of the last few days of the month.

This is unlikely but, in any event, he could not offer any evidence on that point.

Accordingly, the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00061607-001 is not well founded

Payment of Wages