ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055339
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ilaria Aldrigo | Rocdoc Ambulance Service Festimed Ltd |
Complaint(s):
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-00067405-001 | 15/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00067405-002 | 15/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses presents. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 9 January 2025, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, an ambulance service provider, on 4 December 2023 as an Emergency Medical Technician. Her employment ended on 11 November 2024. The Complainant was paid €703 per week and worked for 42 hours per week.
|
CA-00067405-001 Complaint made under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing. She stated that she was informed on Monday 11 November 2024, by phone call, that the Respondent company, “no longer existed” and that she was not to come to work the next day. She did not receive a termination letter. She did not get a payment in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5(1) of the Act provides: “(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless— (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or (c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.” Section 5(6) of the Act provides: — (a) 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), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, 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. The issue for decision in relation to the Complainant’s complaint is whether or not the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from her wages contrary to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to the unpaid notice which she claims were due to her on the termination of her employment on 11 November 2024. In considering this issue, I must first decide whether the claimed unlawful deduction was in fact “properly payable” to the complainant within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the Act. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the sum of €703.00 (one week’s notice payment based on the length of the Complainant’s service) was “properly payable” to the Complainant in respect of unpaid notice, within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the Act on the termination of her employment. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages contrary to Section 5 of the Act in respect of unpaid notice which was payable to her on the termination of her employment. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €703 as payment in lieu of her notice. |
CA-00067405-002 Complaint made under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing. She stated that she was informed on Monday 11 November 2024, by phone call, that the Respondent company, “no longer existed” and that she was not to come to work the next day. She did not receive a termination letter. The Complainant stated that when her employment ended she was owed €2,448.50 in unpaid wages and €1,007.50 in Holiday Pay. A total of €3,456. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5(1) of the Act provides: “(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless— (a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, (b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or (c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.” Section 5(6) of the Act provides: — (a) 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), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, 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. The issue for decision in relation to the Complainant’s complaint is whether or not the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from her wages contrary to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to the unpaid wages and holiday pay which she claims were due to her on the termination of her employment on 11 November 2024. In considering this issue, I must first decide whether the claimed unlawful deduction was in fact “properly payable” to the complainant within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the Act. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the sum of €3,456 was “properly payable” to the Complainant in respect of unpaid wages and holiday pay, within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the Act on the termination of her employment. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages contrary to Section 5 of the Act in respect of unpaid wages and holiday pay which was payable to her on the termination of her employment. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €3,456. |
Dated: 13-03-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Unpaid notice, unpaid wages. |