This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

  Return to Search

PWD1928

FULL RECOMMENDATION
PW/19/25
DETERMINATION NO. PWD1928
ADJ-00013332 CA-00017562-001

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991


PARTIES :
APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL LTD
(REPRESENTED BY JW O'DONOVAN SOLICITORS)

- AND -

MR DANILO MARCHESE
(REPRESENTED BY GROSSO & MALDONADO SOLICITORS ABOGADOS AVVOCATI)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms Treacy
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s) ADJ-00013332 CA-00017562-002


BACKGROUND:

2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 11 January 2019. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 June 2019. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION :

This is an appeal by Danilo Marchese (hereafter the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00013332 given under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (the Act) in a claim that he was owed payment for 4.15 hours from his former employer Apple Distribution International Ltd (hereafter the Respondent). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

Complainant’s case

The Complainant in his evidence to the Court stated that he had worked 4.15 hours overtime covering the period the end of September and the beginning of October 2017. He was not in a position to give specific dates for the overtime. It was his submission that he was expecting to be paid in November 2017 for that overtime. The Complainant in his evidence told the Court that this overtime was not done in one block but was made up of a number of small blocks of overtime. The Complainant accepted that his payslip for November showed payment for overtime of 4.67 but it was his evidence that referred to different overtime. However, it was also his evidence to the Court that he could not remember when he did that particular block of overtime.

In response to a question from the Court the Complainant confirmed that overtime payments were normally paid as a matter of course and that he had not experienced any difficulties in the past in getting paid for his overtime.

Respondent’s case

It is the Respondent’s submission to the Court that the Complainant was paid for all of his overtime. The system they have in place requires prior approval by the manager once that approval is received the overtime is paid. The Respondent told the Court that they have reviewed their records and have been unable to identify any periods of overtime worked by the Complainant that have not been paid. It is their submission that the 4.67 hours overtime payment in his November payslip was in respect of all sanctioned overtime in that period.

The applicable law

Section 5 of the Payment of Wage Act 1991 deals with regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers and in particular section 5(6)states;

  • “Where—
    • (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”.
Discussion and Determination

In all the circumstances of this case and on the evidence before it the Court is satisfied, that the Complainant received payment in respect of the overtime worked in the late September early October period and therefore no contravention of the Act occurred.

Determination

The Courts determines that there was no contravention of the Act therefore the appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication officer is upheld.

The Court so Determines.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
DC ______________________
21 October 2019 Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.