PWD2322

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00043146 CA-00053355-001

BACKGROUND:

2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 22 September 2023 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:-

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Nkemdirim Vivien Ngene against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00043146, dated 14 June 2023) made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”).

The Adjudication Officer found the complaint to be well founded and awarded Nkemdirim Vivien Ngene an award of €1,717 against her employer Reign Healthcare.

Nkemdirim Vivien Ngene lodged an appeal of that decision to the Labour Court on 27 June 2023. A Labour Court hearing held on 22 September 2022.

For ease, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were before the Adjudication Officer. Hence, Nkemdirim Vivien Ngene is referred to as “the Complainant” and Reign Healthcare is referred to as “the Respondent”.

POSITION OF THE COMPLAINANT

The Complainant confirmed to the Court that her complaint relates to an underpayment by her former employer during the four-week pay period encompassed by her payslip dated 22 September 2022. She submits that she was incorrectly taxed at a higher rate of 40% instead of a rate of 20%, and that these deductions were made in contravention of the Act.

POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent submits that the complaint before the Court arose as a result of a misunderstanding. The Complainant was taxed at an ‘emergency tax’ rate because of her failure to provide a PPS number. There was no breach of the Act.

Relevant Law:

The Act at Section 5 set out regulations regarding deductions made and payments received by employers. The Act at Section 5(1) provides as follows:

5.—(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,….

(5) Nothing in this section applies to—…

• (c) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee in pursuance of a requirement imposed on the employer by virtue of any statutory provision to deduct and pay to a public authority, being a Minister of the Government, the Revenue Commissioners or a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014), amounts determined by that authority as being due to it from the employee, if the deduction is made in accordance with the relevant determination of that authority, or…
  
  

The Complainant asserts that her employer made an unlawful deduction from her wages for the four-week pay period encompassed by her payslip dated 22 September 2022.

It is accepted that the Complainant’s gross pay for that four-week period was €3,840. After deductions for “PAYE”, “USC” and “PRSI ee”, she received a net payment of €1,843.20.

The Complainant confirmed to the Court that her complaint relates solely to the deduction of tax related payments from her gross salary. The Complainant’s appeal rests on the assertion that the deductions made from her gross payment for the relevant period are wrong as she was incorrectly taxed at a higher rate. She submits that these deductions were made in contravention of the Act.

The Act at s.5 allows for deductions to be made by an employer from the wages of an employee as a result of a requirement imposed on it by virtue of a statutory provision to deduct from an employee an amount determined by that authority as being due to it from the employee.

It is clear that the Act provides specifically for statutory deductions from wages. It follows that the Respondent was obliged in this case to apply the appropriate tax to the Complainant’s wages which, in the absence of a PPS number, was an emergency tax rate.

The Court’s jurisdiction is solely confined to determining if there was a breach of the Payment of Wages Act. Where an overpayment of tax is made, that matter can be pursued directly by an employee with the Revenue Commissioners.

The Court finds that the complaint before the Court in this appeal is misguided.

The Court finds that the amount properly payable to the Complainant for the relevant pay period in question was €3,840 gross.

The Court finds that the deductions made from the Complainant’s wages during this period were deductions made in accordance with s.5 of the Act. As a result no unlawful deduction was made from the Complainant’s wages.

As no evidence of a breach of s.5 of the Act was presented to the Court, the Court finds that there was no unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages in September 2022.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
SOC	______________________
27 Sep 2023	Deputy Chairman