Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Wladyslaw  Dubicki

G4S Secure Solutions Limited [amended on consent at hearing]

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

Eimear O' Reilly G4S Secure Solutions Limited

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-00061391-001

05/02/2024

CA-00061391-001

These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 05/02/2024.  The Complainant alleges contraventions by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statute in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 30/08/2024.

The Complainant at all material times was employed as a Security Officer.  The Complainant works a 43 hour week for which he is paid €750.00 gross per week.  The Respondent is a security company engaged in the provision of security products, services and solutions with 1400 employees nationwide. 

The Complainant submits on his WRC complaint form that his employer has not paid or has paid him less than the amount due to him namely wages in the amount of €179.02 and holiday pay in the amount of €1440.00.  The Complainant submits 25/08/2023 as the date on which he should have received such payments. 

The Respondent accepts there has been human error, errors of computation and system errors in the Complainant’s pay that resulted in a number of underpayments all of which have been rectified.   

CA-00061391-001

The Complainant submits in recent months, he has experienced numerous deductions or failure to pay various components of his salary on time.   The Complainant submits that after each incident, he filed a complaint (Grievance Letter) in which he described the type of error in detail.   The Complainant submits that unfortunately, he has not received any kind of response or explanation to any of his complaints, apart from the last complaint, when the employer was already informed that a complaint about the practices had been filed with the WRC. 

The Complainant submits that fortunately for him, he works in a place where there is a group of a dozen or so colleagues, and therefore there is also a direct superior acting as a manager, and as a result, he was able to help him recover for the most part of outstanding money. 

The Complainant provided details of 20 instances of payroll errors and as of the date of his written submission filed to the WRC he submits all outstanding amounts have been paid apart from €184.00. which relates to the calculation of public holiday benefit. 

CA-00061391-001

The Respondent accepts there have been errors of computation and system errors in respect of the Complainant’s pay.  The Respondent’s position is that all errors have been rectified and that no monies are outstanding as of 30 August 2024.  The Respondent submits the majority of the underpayments were rectified approximately one month after payment was due. 

The Respondent sincerely apologises to the Complainant for the errors with his pay and for the stress and inconvenience this has caused and apologies that he has had to chase elements of his pay.  The Respondent concedes there were a number of payment of wages topics that needed attention and accepts that the Complainant had to lodge a complaint with the WRC.   

CA-00061391-001

This is a complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. 

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have carefully reviewed all relevant  documents provided to me.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.  I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. 

This complaint was filed with the WRC on 05/02/2024.  Therefore, the six-month cognisable period for consideration in the within complaint is the period from 06/08/2023 to 05/02/2024.  I note the Complainant states the alleged contraventiontook place on 25/08/2023. 

The Relevant Law

The Relevant Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 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:

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides as follows:

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or 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 Payment of Wages Act, 1991 address the circumstances in which wages which are properly payable are not paid:

(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.

In the case of Marek Balans v. Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 the High Court made it clear that the WRC, when considering a complaint under the 1991 Act, must first establish the wages which were properly payable to the employee on the occasion before considering whether a deduction had been made.  If it is established that a deduction within the meaning of the Act had been made, the WRC would then consider whether that deduction was lawful. 

The Relevant Facts

It is common case that the wages paid to the Complainant during the period forming the basis of this complaint were less than the total amount of wages properly payable to the Complaint on a number of occasions.  The quantum of difference between what was properly payable had varied and comprised for the most part of public holiday benefit and annual leave payment which had been discharged by mid-November 2023.   

The Complainant submitted on day of hearing the quantum of difference was €184.00 which comprised public holiday benefit. 

I note there appeared to be a lack of clarity on the manner in which public holiday benefit was calculated for different categories of workers and when this was explained to the Complainant he accepted the agreed arrangement utilised for his category of worker. 

Notwithstanding, the Respondent agreed to pay the disputed €184.00 to the Complainant as a gesture of goodwill which I note has since been paid.

I note the Respondent acknowledged there were a number of payment of wages issues that required attention and apologies were offered to the Complainant on behalf of the company.  On the basis of evidence given at hearing by both parties around these issues I am of the view the overall payroll system appears to be in need of remedial attention in order to avoid such errors occurring in the future.    

The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 at section 5(6) provides:

(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.”

I accept that the Respondent’s actions fall within the provisions of section 5(6)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.  Accordingly, I find this complaint to be not well-founded. 

For completeness, I am satisfied that any monies owing has been paid and there is no outstanding payment to be made.  I am satisfied errors in underpayment had been rectified prior to hearing. 

CA-00061391-001 complaint pursuant to section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

For the reasons set out above I decide this complaint as presented is not well-founded. 

Payroll errors in computation;