ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057993
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mairtin O'Haodha | Metlab Ltd |
Representatives |
| Susan Canning W.H Scott & Son Engineers 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-00070370-002 | 28/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070370-003 | 28/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070370-004 | 28/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
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.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised.
I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and the Organisation of Working Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) on the 23rd of March 2025.
The Complainant worked for the respondent from 4th of June 2024 to 18th of March 2025. He resigned his employmentand failed to work the required notice period. . His complaint is that the Respondent wrongfully deducted monies from his final pay cheques.
The Respondent submits that the deductions in question relate to a recoupment of 75% of the cost of training it had paid for during the Complainant’s period of employment and which it was contractually entitled to be reimbursed for. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
My last day of employment was the 17.03.2025, the company pays weekly in arrears and my final pay should have been paid in to my account on the 21.03.2025 on which date they deducted €1110.67 . I did not receive my paid holiday/annual leave entitlement which was due on the 28.03.2025. This amounts to €624 which was instead deducted from my payslip. I did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of my employment. Despite multiple attempts to contact HR and payroll via email, I have received no response. Although my pay has been reported to Revenue, I have not received any payment. Additionally, I have not been provided with a single payslip since leaving the company. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant was employed by Metlab part of the WH Scott Group from 4/6/24 to 18/3/25. He was employed as an NDT (Non-Destructive Technician) in the Dublin area The complainant refused to work the correct notice period. He has been supplied with his final 2 payslips. The respondent has explained that his mail requesting the payslips was caught in our IT system as this often happens with external emails. The money that was stopped from his pay was repayment for certified training that he enrolled in and left the company within a very short time frame of completing it, which triggers a payback clause which the complainant was aware of as per the company handbook (page 8 section 3.4 which details that if you leave within 12 months of completion 75% must be repaid) which the complainant accepted via his own HR account. The complainant was issued with a company handbook as part of the induction process, and it was added to his HR file (Bright HR cloud-based system) for him to sign and accept which he did Details of courses and payments are as follows: 1. Visual Course £1,001.17/ €1221 2. 2. DPI Course £1,875/€2,287 Total €3,508 Repayment due @75% is €2,631.00 Reclaimed via payroll €1,115.77 on March 14th, 2025, and €585.96 on March 21st, 2025. Total reclaimed €1,701.73. Outstanding balance owed to Metlab/WH Scott Group by the complainant €929.27 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070370-002 | 28/03/2025 |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5(2)(b) of the Act provides: “(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of— (a) ….(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment, unless—(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with— (I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof”. The complainant advised the hearing that he had not received any payment form the respondent after his resignation. The complainant stated that he had emailed requesting his payslip and wages but had received no reply. The complainant advised the hearing that he contacted revenue and discovered that the respondent had submitted two payslips for him with a total of zero wages on each The complainant stated that eh payslips were dated The complainant advised the hearing that the payslips indicate that deductions were made from his wages which resulted in payslips for zero amounts being issued. The complainant stated that he had resigned his employment on 17th of March but had received no further wages or payslips after that date. The complainant stated that he tried to contact the respondent but that he received no reply to his queries. The complainant advised the hearing that upon contacting revenue he discovered that the respondent had deducted an amount of €1110.67 from his wages on 21.03.2025 and €624 from his wages on 28.03.25. Witness for the respondent advised the hearing that they had made the deductions form the complainant’s wages after his resignation and that that these deductions were in respect of the cost of training courses which had been provided to the complainant and which they were required to recoup that as he left within 12 months of completion he was required to repay 75% of training costs. The respondent stated that the complainant had resigned on 17th of March 2025 and had refused to work his notice period. The respondent stated that the complainant had been uncontactable by the respondent and so they had been unable to agree a repayment plan with him to pay back the amounts due. The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant was aware of the requirement to repay 75% of the costs of training due to his leaving the employment within 12 months of same as this policy is contained in the Company handbook. The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant had signed his contract on commencement of employment and was issued with a company handbook as part of the induction process and it was added to his HR file (Bright HR cloud-based system) for him to sign and accept which he did. When asked whether the complainant had been notified of the specific deduction prior it being made the respondent referred to the fact that it had no contact with the complainant after his resignation and stated that they had tried to contact him, but he had blocked their number. The complainant acknowledged that he had blocked the respondents’ phone numbers as he did not want contact from them. The respondent advised the hearing that the usual practice would be to agree a repayment plan with an employee who left within 12 months of completion of training and was thus required to repay 75% of training costs but that they were unable to agree with the complainant as he had cut off contact and refused to work his notice period. The complainant advised the hearing that he was aware of the training recoupment policy and the requirement to repay the training costs but stated that he did not know when it would be recouped or how much would be taken. The respondent advised the hearing that it had not recouped all of what it was owed by the complainant as it had only recouped €1,701.73 which was not the full amount owed by the complainant. Having regard to the evidenced adduced before I am satisfied that the Respondent did provide specialised training to the Complainant for which it paid up front. I am satisfied that the respondent handbook contains details of the recoupment policy and specifies that 75% of training costs fall to be repaid in the event that an employee leaves within 12 months. I am also satisfied that the complainant was aware of the respondent’s recoupment policy and that he was aware that he was expected to repay 75% of training costs given that he had exited within 12 months. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the deduction of the amounts of €1110.67 and €624 from his final payslips does not amount to an unlawful deduction. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I am satisfied that the deduction of the amount of €1110.67 does not amount to an unlawful deduction and I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070370-003 | 28/03/2025 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that the deduction of the amount of €624 does not amount to an unlawful deduction and I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I am satisfied that the deduction of the amount of €624 does not amount to an unlawful deduction and I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070370-004 | 28/03/2025 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Dated: 13th November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|