Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Conor  Sparksman

P & L Carpentry

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-00066700-001

11/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00066700-002

11/10/2024

The complainant was employed by the respondent as an apprentice from January 3rd, 2024, until the employment terminated on September 23rd, that year.

He had been provided with a toolkit and over the course of his employment a deduction was made from his wages of €20 per week to re-pay for those tools. He said that this was never specifically authorised by him.

On the termination of his employment, he noticed that from his wage slip that he was significantly underpaid to the extent of €170.43.

He contacted management and was told that this was in respect of the outstanding balance in relation to the payment for his tools. Again, he says that he never authorised any such deduction.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Written notice of the hearing had been sent by post on December 11th, 2024, and a further request for  email details for the purposes of setting up the online hearing were sent by email on January 24th, 2025.

No reply was received to either of these communications.

At the outset the complainant agreed that the second complaint is a duplicate based on the same set of facts and it was withdrawn.

The payment of wages due is one of the most fundamental aspects of the contract of employment. This hardly needs to be said. 

Indeed, it 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 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 deductions had been authorised by an express  contractual term. 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.

In principle 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.

It is very clear that none of these statutory conditions were met by the respondent prior to making any deductions and accordingly the complaint is well founded.

I award the complainant €170.43 in wages due to him.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00066700-001 is well founded and I award the complainant €170.43.

Complaint CA-00066700-002 was withdrawn at the hearing.

Payment of Wages