EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEALS OF: CASE NOS.
Complete Highway Care Limited – appellant PW280-PW300/2013
against the decisions of the Rights Commissioner in the cases of:
Devidas Petkus – respondent 1
Romas Pusvaskis- respondent 2
Zydrunas Zukas- respondent 3
Saluius Matulevicius- respondent 4
Tadas Derkintis- respondent 5
Ramunas Narbutas- respondent 6
Laimonas Semetulskis- respondent 7
Dragos Aionitaoei- respondent 8
Rolandas Kazdailis- respondent 9
Darius Martinkus- respondent 10
Artuas Grunda- respondent 11
Mindaugas Milasius- respondent 12
Sergiu Nohai- respondent 13
Dumitru Vatamanu- respondent 14
Mazvydas Cepliauskas- respondent 15
Nerijus Raguckas- respondent 16
Deivis Balakauskas- respondent 17
Vilius Klauas- respondent 18
Evaldas Sadzevicius- respondent 19
Maciej Steglinski- respondent 20
Darius Petkus- respondent 21
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly BL
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr T. Brady
heard this appeal at Dublin on 23rd July and 24th October 2014
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Frank Drumm BL instructed by Mr Martin Farrelly,
32 Frascati Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Respondent: Mr David Lane, Sitpu, Construction Division,
Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employer appealing the decisions of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, ref: r-115112-pw-12/EH, r-115288-pw-12/EH, r-115287-pw-12/EH, r-115261-pw-12/EH, r-115292-pw-12/EH, r-115061-pw-12/EH, r-115285-pw-12/EH, r-115269-pw-12/EH, r-115110-pw-12/EH, r-115263-pw-12/EH, r-115062-pw-12/EH, r-115256-pw-12/EH, r-115060-pw-12/EH, r-115109-pw-12/EH, r-115111-pe-12/EH, r-115290-12/EH, r115274-pw-12/EH, r-115270-pw-12/EH, r-113864-pw-12/EH, r-115262-pw-12/EH and r-115258-pw-12/EH.
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Determination
The appellant argued that the application submitted on behalf of respondents 12 & 13 was for ‘non-payment of wages’ and bars them from bringing a claim under Part A of the form under ‘Deduction of Wages’.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the decision of McGovern J in Louth Co. Co. v VEC, that the parties were fully aware of the ‘general nature of the claim’ and were not prejudiced.
The Tribunal must now decide whether the appellant’s 10% adjustment to the respondents’ pay amounts to a reduction or a deduction.
Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 forbids an employed from making deductions from an employee’s wages except under certain explicit circumstances.
The Tribunal recognises the inherent difficulty in differentiating a reduction from a deduction. A deduction or a reduction of 10%, as in this case, has different implications on the respondents’ statutory liabilities. A deduction of 10% would not alter the respondents’ statutory liabilities i.e. PRSI, USC, PAYE. However a reduction does alter their statutory liabilities. It is clear from the payslips exhibited that the respondents’ statutory liabilities were altered and therefore the Tribunal can only conclude that the 10% adjustment was a reduction. The Act does not apply to a reduction. On that basis the Tribunal upsets the decisions of the Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and cancels the awards made to the respondents.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)