Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A driver

A transport company

Representatives

Joseph Ateb Siptu

Michael McGrath Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001579

25/07/2023

The employer is a transport company. The worker commenced employment with the employer in November 2016 as a driver. A complaint was received by the WRC on 25 July 2023. This complaint was the subject of two hearings; the first hearing took place on 20 February 2024. The first hearing was adjourned to allow for further negotiations to take place at local level. Unfortunately, the parties did not reach agreement on the dispute. A second hearing took place on 19 November 2024. 

It is accepted by both sides that the worker received a significant overpayment, totalling some €30,885 gross over a three-year period. The union accepts that an overpayment was made and the worker must make a repayment. The employer unilaterally started making deductions from the worker’s weekly pay to recoup the overpayment.

Both sides agree that the net amount due at the outset of repayments was €21,057, that the worker has to date (19 November 2024) repaid €4,050 and therefore the outstanding total is €17,007.

The dispute lies in how much the worker must repay in total and how, and over what period, that amount should be repaid.

The worker was represented at the hearing by SIPTU. A detailed written submission was provided by the worker.

The worker’s representative explained that the overpayment was not of the worker’s making, it was due to an error in the employer’s calculation of the worker’s weekly pay.  The net amount of the overpayment amounted to €21,057 after tax. Since the overpayment was discovered, the worker has repaid some of the money at a rate of €50 per week.  The worker is willing to repay the balance remaining at this rate but wants the overall amount to be reduced by the employer as it was the employer’s error that created the problem in the first place. Paying the total original amount would cause great financial distress for the worker as a mother of three small children. Although the employer has agreed to reduce the original amount owed by the worker by €3,500, the worker submits this is not enough to unburden her of the stress that this matter has caused and continues to cause her.

The worker wants the total amount she will have to repay to be reduced significantly.

At the hearing the worker stated she was willing continue to pay €50 per week for the next three years (€7,800) but she would not continue repaying any amount after the three years was up.

The employer was represented by Ibec at the hearing. A detailed written submission was provided by the employer.

The employer’s representative stated that the employer is open to finding a resolution to this dispute. The employer is willing to a lowering of the €50 per week deduction being made at present, however, there should be no reduction to the total amount owed. The employer accepts that it would be unreasonable for it to look for the gross amount of the overpayment to be repaid by the worker.  The employer believes that it should have been clear to the worker that she was receiving substantial overpayments every week. 

At the hearing the employer proposed that it could reduce the amount owed by €5,000, thus reducing the amount owed by the worker to €12,00. The rate of repayment to be €50 per week.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

It is unfortunate that an overpayment was made in the first instance but that is what happened.  It is more unfortunate that it took so long for the overpayment to be identified, by either side. Be that as it may, we are where we are. The worker accepts she must make a repayment but wants the total she has to pay to be reduced. She is willing to repay that amount at a rate of €50 per week.

The employer on the other hand wants the total amount that is to be repaid to remain as it is but is willing to accept a smaller weekly repayment than €50 per week.

The worker has said she is willing pay a total of €7,800 in repayment, the employer has agreed to reduce the total amount it is seeking to have repaid to €12,000. The difference between the two disputants amounts to €6,600. The worker is willing to continue making payments of €50 per week, that is €2,600 per annum.

Expecting the worker continue to pay €50 per week for 4.6 years, thus paying off the €12,000 the employer is seeking is unfair in the circumstances. Expecting the employer to accept further payments totalling €7,800 is also unfair.  Somewhere in between is fair.  My view is that it would be fair that the worker repays €9,100 at €50 per week which should take 3.5 years.

Overpayment, repayment