ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005024
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Sales | Retail |
Representatives |
| Lisa Conroy Peninsula Group Limited |
Complaint:
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-00007132-001 | 21/09/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/03/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Location of Hearing: Room 4.02 Lansdowne House
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed from 2nd January 2014 until he terminated the employment on 2 September 2016. The Complainant was paid €26,000.00 gross per annum and he worked 40 hours a week. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 21st September 2016 alleging the Respondent had breached Section 5 of the Act and he is claiming payment of €996.18. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that he lived in Cork and he was provided with a Company Car. There was no official Company Depot in Cork. He stated that by letter dated 25th August 2016 he tendered his resignation with one week’s notice to terminate on 2nd September 2016. A named Manager was not available the week of 2nd September 2016 to do a handover of the Company Car so the handover was arranged for the following week. He was requested by the named Manager to collect him from the train and he returned his IPAD. He was informed that due to wear and tear on the Company car the Respondent were deducting €690.00 from a pay increase of €1000.00 agreed to be paid effective from 1st April 2016 but not paid until 13th September 2016 with the deductions. He was informed of this deduction from his wages due by letter dated 7th September 2016. This letter referenced his Contract of Employment where the Company reserves the right to deduct from salary any sum up to €1265.00 to cover the cost of damage, loss or neglect of company assets. The Respondent also provided a copy of the Inspection Report. There was mileage of 105,000 km on the car. The Complainant stated he had not signed the Handover form and the Manager who collected the car did not take any photos of the car in the presence of the Complainant and the Manager then drove the car back to Dublin a distance of 400km,. He was informed by la named Manager that €690.00 was to be deducted which was before the inspection was carried out on the car by the garage and then he was informed by email in the letter dated 7th September 2016 of the deductions. He sent a Solicitor’s letter to the Respondent dated 12th September 2016 and this argued that relying on the Contract of employment in relation to a car which had been driven for two and a half years and expecting it to be returned in exactly the same condition after it was received by the Complainant. This letter states the final deduction from his wages was €666.18. The Respondent replied by letter on 30th September 2016 stating the deduction was correct. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent raised a preliminary issue in relation to the Complaint Form submitted by the Complainant in which he is claiming a deduction of €996.18 but the form does not set out in detail the alleged separate deductions made in respect of company assets, holiday pay, back pay, expenses etc. The Complainant signed his Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment on 13th January 2016. Which states “The Company Handbook must be read in conjunctio0n with this agreement”. The Complainant was paid for his last working week from 29th August to 2nd September 2016 on 13th September 2016 – payslip provided. Deductions were made from this. In a letter from the Company dated 9th September 2016 the Complainant was notified of a pay increase of €1000.00 per annum to €26,000 per annum backdated to 1st April 2016 and to be paid on 13th September 2016. Included in the payslip and wages of 13th September 2016 was back pay in the sum of €407.69 for 106 working days between 1st April and 2nd September 2016. In relation to the Complainant of Annual Leave. The Complainant was entitled to 20 days annual leave per annum calculated at 8% on a pro rata basis on cessation. The Complainant was entitled to annual leave of 13.33 days, however he had taken16 days between January and September 2016 and these were taken 2 weeks before his resignation. The Respondent was entitled to therefore deduct €367 for 3.67 days annual leave taken but not accrued on termination of the employment. The Respondent deducted €330.00 being an overpayment of annual leave. This is provided for at Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant also stated he had not been paid his August Bonus. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had been paid this Bonus of €150.00 on 4th October 2016 and this was confirmed by the Complainant at the Hearing. The Respondent stated that the Complainant negligently caused damage to the company vehicle. Section 5 of his Terms and Conditions provide for a deduction from salary of any sum up to and including €1265 to cover the cost of damage loss or neglect of company assets. This states “All Company assets must be returned in the same condition when assigned to you at the commencement of employment”. The Company Handbook also stated in relation to the Company vehicle that it is the employees responsibility to ensure that the exterior and interior are kept clean, damage and rust free……accidental damage to the bodywork should be reported to your company and rectified to company policy. The paint work should be polished at a minimum every six months” The Handbook also provides that should the vehicle be damaged deductions will be made from the salary of the employee. The Company leases vehicles from Lease plan and the Respondent is responsible to ensure the vehicles are returned in the same condition at the end of the lease period. Account is taken for wear and tear. However if damage is assessed as being in excess of wear and tear then the Respondent is invoiced for the full costs incurred. In the Complainant’s case when the vehicle was returned for assessment, the mechanics deemed the damage beyond wear and tear and assigned a cost against the damage. The Complainant was deducted €440 in asset deductions. The Complainant refused to return the car to Dublin and a named Manager had to travel to collect it. He took photos of the car near where the Complainant lived in Cork. The Complainant was provided with these photos. The Complainant was informed by phone on 6th September 2016 that a deduction would be made because of the damage and he was informed by letter dated 7th September 2016 that a deduction in the sum of €690.00 would be made on 13th September 2016. This was broken down as €440 damage - €100 valet cost and €150.00 for a non-functioning tablet which he had returned. The vehicle was inspected on 8th September 2016 and a report on the damage was made. A deduction of €610.32 was made on 13th September 2016. However a refund of €150.00 was made to the Complainant on 30th September 2016 for the non-functioning IPAD and this was confirmed by the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the basis of the evidence and written submission from the Respondent with attached supporting documentation I find as follows. -The Complainant was provided with a written statement of his Terms and Conditions of Employment, including the employee handbook which does provide for a deduction from the wages of an employee up to €1265.00 for cost of damage, loss or neglect of company assets. - The Complainant is seeking payment of €996.18 allegedly deducted from his wages due to him. This comprised €150.00 for his Tablet returned to the Company - €100.00 valeting cost on the car - €440.00 damage to the Company car returned to the Company –expenses of €88.50 – pay increase due to him. The Complainant confirmed at the Hearing that he had been paid his expenses owed (expenses are excluded in the definition of wages as set out at Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991). He also confirmed at the Hearing that he had been refunded the deduction of €150.00 in relation to the Company Tablet. The Complainant also confirmed that he had been paid his wages increase due to him effective from 1st April 2016 and paid to him on 13th September 2016 and this was confirmed in the payslip provided. The remaining deduction amounts to €540..00 - The Complainant had taken 16 days annual leave in the 2016 annual leave year from January to September 2016. He had accrued only 12.33 days. The Respondent deducted €330 in respect of annual leave taken and not accrued on termination of the Employment. This is confirmed in the payslip of 13th September 2016. - The Complainant also confirmed that he was paid his August Bonus due to him of €150.00 and this was paid in October 2015. - The Complainant was provided with a Company car which he drove over a period of 2.75 years from January 2014 to September 2016 when he resigned. I was provided with the Vehicle condition Report of 8th March 2017 some 6 months after the Complainant had ceased employment with the Company. There was no evidence presented to me as to who had been driving the car between September 2016 and 8th March 2017. I note the report from a garage following an inspection on 8th September 2016. This shows that there were 7 scratches on the car. There was no cost of repair quantified on this with the exception of the valet which they quantified at €140.00 while I note that the actual deduction for the valet of the vehicle was €100.00
|
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.
In accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and in view of my findings above I declare the complaint is well founded in part. The only deductions to be considered by me were the deductions of 100.00 for the valet of the vehicle and the deduction of €440.00 in respect of repairs to the Vehicle. The evidence was that the vehicle was returned to the Company on 6th September 2016. An Inspection was carried out by a named Garage on 8th September 2016 where this report identified that the total cost of repairs to scratches identified amounted to €814.75. However the evidence was that the repairs were not carried out then until the car was returned to Lease plan where the total cost of the repairs was quantified at €597.68. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the deduction of €440.00 (subject to any lawful deductions) from his wages and this should be paid to the Complainant within 42 days of the date of this decision. |
Dated: 8th June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Deduction from Wages – damage Company assets. |