ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055579
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Tommy Tropp | Ttec Customer Care Management (Ireland) Limited |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00067765-001 | 29/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The complaint was initially submitted against the Respondent’s trading name, Ttec, on request of both parties this was amended to reflect the Respondent’s actual name.
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent from March until October 2024 in a sales role.
After his employment ended he lodged a complaint under the payment of wages act alleging unlawful deductions from his final salary and non-payment of a bonus. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that he should have received his bonus payment and that the Respondent had made unlawful deductions from his final payslip. The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that they paid the Complainant all sums due to them. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint refers to two specific alleged unlawful deductions. The first in the Complainant’s bonus and the second is the deductions the Respondent made from his final payslip for leave taken. Bonus The Respondent’s bonus scheme takes into account two different metrics. One concerns the volume of sale opportunities generated by the employee. The other concerns the potential value of those sales opportunities. It is accepted by the Complainant that he achieved the necessary target under one heading but failed to reach the target under the other. His evidence was that he was only just off the necessary goals and his line manager thought the Respondent should pay him the bonus regardless. In the circumstances it is clear that the bonus was not properly payable. The requirements of the Respondent’s scheme were clear and the Complainant did not meet them. The Respondent could have given him the bonus anyway but this was at their discretion. Their failure to do so cannot be considered an unlawful deduction in circumstances where the Complainant was not entitled to the bonus. Annual Leave related deductions The Respondent made deductions of just under three days annual leave from the Complainant’s final salary related to annual leave. They invited to make supplemental submissions outlining the basis for this and provided detail of the Complainant taking 15 days annual leave over the course of his approximately 7 months working for the Respondent. At the time his employment ended he had taken more days in leave than he accrued and as per his contract the Respondent was entitled to deduct any overpayments from the Complainant’s final salary. The Complainant was invited to respond to their supplemental submissions but declined to do so. In the circumstances it is clear that the Respondent was rectifying an overpayment and that no breach of the act arises. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 11-03-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|