PWD2513

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00051914 (CA-00063675-001)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.  The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. 

The following is the Court's Decision.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr Martin Currams (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00051914, dated 5 November 2024) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 16 December 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 13 March 2025.

The Factual Background

The Complainant is employed by Hickey Fabrication Services Ltd (‘the Respondent’) as a maintenance fitter. During the material time to which the within complaint relates, the Complainant was on extended sick leave.

The Complaint under the Act

There are two elements to the within complaint: one element relates to the non-payment of a bonus provided for in a collective agreement and the second element relates to the non-payment of an annual tool allowance of €500.00 during the Complainant’s absence on sick leave.

The Complainant’s Submission

The Complainant submits that the Company-Union Agreement, at paragraph 17, states that:

“The Christmas and summer bonuses of one week will also be based on a normal week.”

The Complainant told the Court that the Respondent had paid this bonus to him on three occasions during his period of sick leave but declined to do so on the fourth occasion on which it fell due.

The Complainant also submits that the Respondent’s custom and practice is to pay a tool allowance of €500.00 to each craft worker in Quarter 1 each year. He told the Court that the Respondent paid this to him while on sick leave but declined to pay it when it last fell due.

The Respondent’s Submission

It is accepted on behalf of the Respondent that the Company-Union Agreement makes provision for a Christmas and Summer bonus equivalent in each case to one week’s pay. The Respondent submitted that it paid the bonus on three occasions to the Complainant during his extended sick leave as “a gesture of goodwill”. It submits that the bonus, based as it is on one week’s pay, amounts – in the Complainant’s case – to €0.00 in circumstances where he was not in receipt any wages during his sick leave and was, therefore, not “properly payable” within the meaning of the Act.

The Respondent submits that the tool allowance is not paid directly to employees. Rather, an eligible employee is entitled to obtain tools to the value of €500.00 at a named tool shop and the Respondent pays the shop directly. It is submitted that although the Respondent permitted the Complainant to avail of this facility at the outset of his period of sick leave, it declined to permit him to do so on the last occasion when the allowance was available to his colleagues as he had no need to replace tools as his tools had not been in use for an extended period.

Discussion and Decision

The Court finds that neither aspect of the complaint referred to it on appeal by the Complainant is well-founded. A literal and common-sense interpretation of Paragraph 17 of the Company-Union Agreement is that it provides for payment of a bonus, twice per year, that is calculated on the basis of an employee's normal weekly wage at the material time. As the Complainant was not in receipt of any wages on the occasion on which the Respondent declined to pay the bonus, he was not entitled to receive any payment pursuant to Paragraph 17.

Furthermore, it is self-evident that the purpose of the annual tool allowance paid to employees is to facilitate the replacement of tools that have become worn through use. In circumstances where the Complainant was on extended sick leave, he had not had occasion to use his tools in service of the Respondent and, therefore, the Respondent was not under any obligation to pay for the replacement of tools in those circumstances.

The appeal, therefore, fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
4th April 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.