Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michal  Wojtczak

Rentokil Initial Ltd.

Representatives

Grainne Moran of the HR Suite

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00060131-001

20/11/2023

The Complainant worked for the Respondent pest control company from October 2018 until August 2023. After resigning he submitted a complaint under the payment of wages act alleging a number of deductions from his salary.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence with the assistance of a translator. His former colleague, Natasha Callaghan, also attended and gave evidence.

The Respondent representative made detailed oral and written submissions on their behalf.

The Complainant’s claim relates to three different alleged unlawful deductions/non-payments.

Pay rise linked to training

In August 2022 the Complainant received a letter from his employer where he was told that he would not receive a pay rise like other employees because he had not completed the online courses the Company has asked him to. The reason was that he had a problem with the company phone provided to him. He had raised this issue many times.  

Management did not agree with the reason given for not completing the training and he did not get the pay rise.

Natahsa Callaghan, the Complainant’s former Team Lead gave evidence under affirmation.

Both the Complainant and Ms Callaghan worked under a Manager, Mr L. In August 2022 the deadline was coming up for the training to be completed. A laptop was set up in the office to get employees who had not done the training to do the courses. But Mr L never invited the Complainant. 

The Respondent submits that they paid the Complainant his salary and he was not automatically entitled to any pay increase.  

Calculation of Pay Period

When the Complainant started at this company 5 years ago he was told that the calculation period for each month was to the 18th of the following month.

When he started only worked the last week of October and was paid for the first time on the 18th of November.

He left the company on 29th of August. The next payment period was not until the 18th of September. He alleges that he was ever paid for the 7 working days between 18th of August and 29th of August 2023.

The Respondent has submitted the Complainant’s payslips for this pay period and submit that they paid him for these days.

Calculation of Holidays

The Complainant submits he only used 10 to 12 days of annual leave and was entitled to 23 days per annum and that the unused holidays for the entire year should have been paid on cessation, that is the full entitlement for 2023. He is not sure if he is correct on some of the details.

The Respondent provided detailed records of the Complainant’s leave. He was entitled to 20 days annual leave per annum. Due to his leaving date of 29 August his annual allowance would be pro-rated accordingly, which results in an annual leave entitlement of 13 days. The Company annual leave record shows that up until his date of leaving the complainant availed of 14 days paid annual leave in 2023.

Accordingly, the complainant had overtaken his annual leave by 1 day, in 2023 and this was deducted from his final monthly pay.

Section 5(6)(a) of the 1991 Act provides:

“Where the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act) . . . then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

On review of the evidence available to me I can see no deductions from or underpayments of the Complainant’s wages.

The Respondent has provided evidence that they paid him as owed in his final payslip. The Complainant has failed to establish that he was legally entitled to the pay increases he has referred to.

I find that the complaint is not well founded.