Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Greg  Mulvaney

Elaine Greene t/a Davis Transport Ltd

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-00065628-001

26/08/2024

The respondent was incorrectly named on the original complaint form but consented to a correct of the business name as it now appears above, viz Elaine Greene t/a Davis Transport Ltd.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation and says he is owed one week’s wages for the final week of his employment with the respondent.

The respondent also gave evidence on affirmation and set out the basis on which the complainant was recruited to work for him.

He does not dispute that the complainant was not paid for the week in question.

However, he says the complainant quit his employment in circumstances that caused him great inconvenience and without any notice.

For that reason he withheld the final week’s wages.

The payment of wages due is one of the most fundamental aspects of the contract of employment. This hardly needs to be said and is so fundamental that it has been given statutory underpinning in the Payment of Wages Act.

Section 5 of the Act renders all deductions except ‘authorised deductions’ to be unlawful. Authority  for a deduction may arise in one of three ways: authority by statute, express contractual term or by written consent of the employee.

There was no evidence in this case that the deduction had been authorised by an express  contractual terms. To meet this obligation, it must

-    Be a specific term in the contract,

-    Be fair & reasonable,

-    Set out the particulars and amount [or criteria for such] of the deduction, and

-    not exceed the loss whish the employer aims to recoup.

For this to apply, the consent of the employee must be express in writing and it must be signed.

The other option which may arise in Section 5 of the Act if where an employee gives prior written consent to that deduction.

Specifically, under subsection (2), employers may not make any deduction from wages which arises from either:

(a) any act or omission of the employee (e.g. the employee negligently damages employer property) or :

(b) any goods or services supplied by the employer which were necessary to the employment (e.g. tools).

Where an employer intends, to make either of these kinds of deduction:

(i) it must be a term of the contract of employment, whether express / implied, written / oral,

and

(ii) the amount must be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances,

and

(iii & iv) the employer gave the employee a prior document in writing telling him that a deduction would be made in these circumstances (this is before any such event occurs rendering the employee liable) and that if a deduction is to be made for the act or omission, then the employee must be furnished with notice in writing at least one week before the deduction is to start.

and

(v) the deduction costs, or damages sustained by the employer must not exceed the amount or the cost of the damages.

The respondent made clear his annoyance at what he saw as the complainant’s peremptory departure from his employment and which undoubtedly caused him some inconvenience.

However, he is not entitled to retaliate by withholding wages that are contractually due to the complainant for the reasons just set out.

It is very clear that none of the statutory conditions were met by the respondent prior to his decision not to pay the complainant wages that he accepts had been earned and accordingly the complaint is well founded.

I award the complainant wages in the amount of €950 to be made without deduction.

Complaint CA-00065628-001 is well founded for the reasons set out above. I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €950.00 wages without deduction.

Payment of Wages