Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bienvenido Morales Box

ABC Living

Representatives

Represented himself 

 Represented by the directors

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-00065766-001

03/09/2024

The respondent is a furniture and interior design shop.  The complainant commenced employment on October 20th 2022 as a sales associate.  His starting salary was €30,000, equivalent to €2,500 gross per month.  On November 30th 2023, he received €2,833 gross and this continued until June 2024.  On the form he submitted to the WRC he said that he received no formal notification about this increase. 

On his complaint form, the complainant referred to a meeting on July 30th 2024 at which he was informed about “a clerical error” in his wages that resulted in an overpayment of €333 per month for the previous eight months.  The complainant said that, at the meeting on July 30th, he wasn’t informed that his employer intended to recoup the overpayment and he wasn’t given an opportunity to dispute or rectify the matter.

On August 23rd 2024, the complainant gave his employer one week’s notice of his intention to resign.  He said that he was absent due to work-related stress on August 24th and 25th, although he provided no medical certification regarding this.  He went on holidays on August 26th.  On August 29th, Mr Rochford sent the complainant a WhatsApp message telling him that he was sending him a letter with details of his salary calculations for August.  In the text message, Mr Rochford said that the complainant wouldn’t receive any wages in August, because “the overpayments in salary exceed any monies due, meaning that there is no salary payment this month.”

On September 3rd, the complainant submitted this complaint to the WRC under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  There was some correspondence then between him and Mr Rochford and, on September 4th 2024, the complainant wrote to Mr Rochford to confirm that he agreed with the deduction of two days for sick leave and he also agreed that he had taken one day of annual leave more than what he had accrued up to the date of his resignation.  However, in his complaint form of September 3rd, the complainant claimed that he was entitled to sick pay and holidays from the 24th to the 30th of August.

At the time that he submitted this complaint to the WRC on September 3rd 2024, the complainant said that he received no explanation for the failure to pay his wages in August 2024.  He said that a letter he received by email on September 3rd and dated August 29th 2024 indicated that he owed the company €604.47.

The complainant asked me to find that his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act is well founded.  He is seeking his wages for August 24th to 30th 2024 and compensation for the stress and anxiety which he claims he suffered because of his employer’s failure to pay his final wages.

The complainant’s base salary was €30,000, but the outsourced payroll consultants made an error and he was overpaid by €333 per month from November 2023 until June 2024.  The total amount overpaid was €2,562.  When this was brought to his attention in July 2024, Mr Rochford said that the complainant acknowledged that he was aware of the mistake.  Mr Rochford said that the complainant was informed that the overpayment would be calculated and that arrangements would be made for the money to be repaid in a way that avoided financial hardship.

In his submission for the hearing of this complaint, Mr Rochford said that the complainant resigned at lunchtime on August 23rd and left two hours later without any discussion or explanation for his departure.  He refused to work his notice, he did not hand over customer files and correspondence and he left the business short-staffed over a busy weekend.

On August 29th 2024, the payroll consultants informed Mr Rochford that the amount overpaid to the complainant between November 2023 and June 2024 exceeded the net amount of final wages due to him in August.  A letter was sent to the complainant to explain these calculations and Mr Rochford said that, on August 29th, he sent the complainant a WhatsApp message to let him know that a letter had been sent to his home address.  In the letter, Mr Rochford told the complainant that he would receive no wages for August, because the amount of the overpayment, €2,562, exceeded the amount he was due. 

The complainant contacted Mr Rochford, and on September 3rd, he submitted this complaint to the WRC.  Also on that day, Mr Rochford informed him that the payroll consultants accepted that they were responsible for the overpayment and that they had agreed to pay back the €2,562.  Mr Rochford informed the complainant that this amount would not now be deducted from his August wages.  On September 4th 2024, the complainant agreed in writing to the reconciliation proposed in the letter of August 29th without the deduction for the overpayment.  The complainant’s final pay was €1,615.39 plus commission of €438.39.  He was not paid for two days of uncertified sick leave on August 24th and 25th or for holidays taken between August 26th and 30th.

Mr Rochford said that, at the time of his resignation on August 23rd 2024, the complainant had taken seven days’ holidays, although he had accrued only 6.3 days.  Approval for him to take holidays from August 26th to 30th was conditional on his continuing to work and to accrue this leave.  When he resigned, his annual leave taken exceeded the days that he had accrued and he was therefore not entitled to any further holidays.

When he sent a text message on August 24th to say that he was unwell, the complainant provided no certification to support this assertion.  A sick note he sent from Spain on August 30th 2024 refers to an incident on August 29th and does not cover the “sick days” taken on August 24th and 25th.  These two days were considered as unpaid leave and, in an email on September 4th 2024 which was provided in the respondent’s book of papers at the hearing, the complainant gave permission to deduct these days from his final wages.

Mr Rochford said that efforts were made to resolve matters amicably with the complainant and that, although there is a provision in the company’s policies to recoup the overpayment of €2,562, the money was not recouped.

I have reviewed the documents provided by the complainant and the respondent in preparation for the hearing of this matter on January 31st 2025.  I have also taken account of the evidence of both sides at the hearing itself.  While he submitted his complaint to the WRC on September 3rd 2024, it is evident that the complainant’s dispute with his former employer was resolved to his satisfaction on September 4th.  I am satisfied that, when he received his final wages of €1,615.39 plus commission of €438.39, that the complainant received the wages to which he was entitled.  I am further satisfied that the overpayment of €2,562 that resulted from a payroll error was not recouped by the respondent and I find therefore, that the respondent has no case to answer regarding a breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I have concluded that there were no illegal deductions from the complainant’s wages and I decide that his complaint is not well founded.

Final wages, overpayment, deduction of the overpayment