Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Billie  Stevens

AAO IE Services Limited

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Danny Brewster, Director on the 9th August 2024. No appearance on the 13th September 2024

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-00060201-001

23/11/2023

On the 23rd November 2023 the Complainant referred a complaint to the WRC wherein he claimed that the Respondent unlawfully deducted one month’s wages in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant gave evidence that following a period of negotiations, by letter dated the 2nd May 2023, he was officially offered and accepted the position of Head of Compliance / MLRO with the Respondent with a start date of the 10th July 2023 and a salary of €160,000 per annum.  His monthly salary amounted to €13,333 gross. The Complainant’s start date was pushed back to the 18th July 2023 at the request of the Respondent and he attended the office on that date and met with the Respondent’s Director and CEO Mr. Danny Brewster. The Complainant worked for the Respondent from the 18th July 2023 until the 31st August 2024. He was paid his salary at the end of July 2023 however he was not paid his salary for the month of August 2023. Despite repeated requests the sum of €13,333.00 gross remains outstanding.

Mr. Danny Brewster is a Director of the Respondent company and its CEO. He appeared on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing on the 9th August 2024. He confirmed that monies were due and owing to the Complainant but he could not state the amount owed. He submitted that the Complainant named the incorrect Respondent on the WRC Complainant form and that at no time was the Complainant employed by the named Respondent.

Arising from the oral submissions made by Mr. Brewster at the commencement of the hearing the Respondent was directed to furnish written submissions to the WRC setting out the basis for its assertion that the Complainant named the incorrect Respondent and Mr. Brewster undertook to do so in advance of the resumed hearing on the 13th September 2024. Mr. Brewster confirmed his availability to attend a resumed hearing on the 13th September 2024.The notice of the hearing arrangements was sent to the Respondent on the 12th August 2024. The Respondent did not file written submissions or documentation in advance of the resumed hearing and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent or its Director at the resumed hearing on 13th September 2024

Having carefully reviewed the file I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and venue. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.  There has been no communication from the Respondent.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties and the oral evidence adduced at the hearings summarised above.

Relevant Law:

Payment of Wages Act 1991

In considering whether the Complainant’s wages were the subject of an unlawful deduction as alleged, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the 1991 Act”).

Section 1 of the 1991 provides the following definition of wages:

"wages", 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 of employment 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:

…

The Complainant claims he is due his salary for the month of August 2023 and this is included in the above definition.

Section 5 of the 1991 Act serves to regulate certain deductions made and payments received by employers.  

Section 5(1) of the 1991 Act provides as follows:

5(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or620  receive any payment from an employee) unless–

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

Section 5(6) of the 1991 Act addresses the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

5(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.

The non-payment of wages that are properly payable to an employee is therefore an unlawful deduction by the employer.  The question to be decided is whether the wages claimed were properly payable.

The Complainant submitted documentation in support his contention that he was at all material times employed by the Respondent. Taking into consideration the documentation submitted to the WRC and the oral evidence of the Complainant I am satisfied as to the veracity of the employment relationship and find that the Complainant has named the correct Respondent.

The Complainant gave evidence that although he was paid his wages for July 2023 he was not paid his wages for the month of August 2023. The Complainant was a credible witness, providing additional detail as required by the Adjudication Officer and supporting his contentions with documentation where possible.  He gave evidence that he was not paid one months’ salary.  I am satisfied that the Complainant has established his claim to one  months’ salary under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  I find that the Respondent deducted this amount unlawfully and that the Complainant is entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to one months’ salary, i.e., €13,333.00 less any lawful deductions.  I consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded, and I direct the Respondent pay the Complainant compensation of €13,333.00 less any lawful deductions.