Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Forde

Panscape Partition Systems Ltd

Representatives

 James Lucey and Sons LLP

 Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00067529-001

20/11/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00070467-001

01/04/2025

The Complainant stated he had a contractual agreement with the Respondent to pay him two hours a day for travel. The Respondent ceased to pay this amount in April 2021. This issue has been the subject of a number of WRC Hearings and one Labour Court decision in the past,  decisions issued all in the Complainants favour and the Respondent now pays the Complainant one hour per day for travel time. The Complainant sought payment for the unpaid wages of one hour per day for the period from May 21st 2024 to April 1st 2025.

The Complainant is employed as a Carpenter as has been involved in a long running dispute with this Respondent  over the payment of 2 hours per day travel pay.

The issue has been the subject of numerous previous WRC and a Labour Court decision in favour of the Complainant but the Respondent has only paid a portion of what was due.

 The complaint relates to a failure by the Respondent  to pay travel money which was agreed as a specific term of the Complainants contract. Travel money was agreed on as 2 hours per day paid including bank holidays and annual leave .

The Complainant has not been paid €20.90 per day since the 4 July 2024 and these losses are ongoing in total there are 99 days pay due up to the 20 November 2024 (excluding weekends). The Complainant is owed €2069.10 up to the 20 November 2024.

This is the 5th time the complainant has referred a complaint on the same facts to the WRC to compel the Respondent  to abide by the terms of his contract. There has been a continuous deduction of wages since 23 April 2021. This has necessitated the Complainant to bring a case every six months. Each time WRC has held in the Complainants favour. The facts have not changed. The Complainant has been subjected over the past four years to continued and unlawful weekly deductions from his wages. In addition the original and first application by the Complainant was appealed to the Labour Court and it further up held the decision of the WRC that he was entitled to his travel money. The subsequent two cases were further appealed to the Labour Court and were withdrawn. Over the past four years and despite the various court judgements in his favour, the Complainant has received none of the monies to which he has been lawfully adjudicated to be entitled to apart from the €292.50 ordered by the Labour Court. This has necessitated him having to bring enforcement proceedings in the district court which are still ongoing

To quote the adjudicator in in the WRC decision : ADJ-00048709

“Indeed, the subjection of the complainant by the respondent to the cost and inconvenience of a fourth hearing, to say nothing of his continuing losses is quite unnecessary and reprehensible “.

The Complainant commenced employment with Panscape Partitions Systems Limited on the 7th April 2000.

The Complainant's gross weekly wages are €1290 of which he receives €1032 net. In addition to his basic pay the Complainant was to receive two hours of travel money per day/10 hours per week , including days of leave.. The rate is €20.90 per hour.

The Complainant therefore has a contractual entitlement to two hours of travel money per day/10 hours per week , including days of leave.. This is a contractual payment and not an expense

The Respondent ceased to pay the Complainant the travel money on the 23 April 2021 It stated that it could not afford it and began paying one hour per day /5 hours per week, excluding days of leave. The Respondent , in essence began to pay the Complainant less than half the agreed hourly travel rate that it previously paid. It commenced to unlawfully deduct this from his wages from the 23 April 2021 and this has continued to date,

There was accordingly an unlawful deduction of €104.50 per week from the Complainant's wages. This has continued since 23 April 2021.

The Complainant initially referred his complaint to the WRC on the 5th May 2021, The initial complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 10th September 2021 The adjudicator published his decision on the 4th January 2023. He found that the Complainant has a contractual entitlement to two hours of travel money per day, including days of leave. He further held that this was a contractual payment and not an expense. He held that the complaint was welt-founded and ordered the Respondent  to pay to the Complainant the unlawful deduction. — WRC Decision ADJ-00030074

The Respondent  was unhappy with the decision and appealed to the Labour Court. The Labour Court published his decision on 26 June 2023 and again found in favour of the Complainant. It ordered that the unlawful deduction be paid. The Respondent  eventually paid this on 4 October 2023 .-see Labour Court's determination No. PWD236.

It is common case that the breach or breaches of the Act which form the basis for the present dispute/appeal are identical to those which formed the basis of the previous Labour Court determination No PWD236 of the 26 June 2023. The Labour Court's decision in that case was not appealed. It therefore constitutes a final examination by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction of the issues being litigated in this case. In fact, the Respondent  paid the unlawfully deducted monies to the Complainant following on from that decision effectively conceding the matters which now form the subject of its present appeal under the Payment of Wages Act.

Accordingly that in the circumstances where, the Labour Court decision was not appealed and the Respondent  has accepted and implemented the Labour Courts determination , that any attempt to defend this case by the Respondent  is clearly "res judicata and should be struck out.

SECTION 6 OF THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

THE LAW

The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 prohibits unlawful deductions from a Complainant's wages.

DOES THIS PAYMENT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A WAGE?

In determining what constitutes wages Section 1 of the Act provides that wages in relation to an Complainant means any sums payable to the Complainant by the Respondent  in connection with his employment, including—

( a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

( b) any sum payable to the Complainant upon the termination by the Respondent  of his contract of employment without his having given to the Complainant the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:'

In this case the payment was recorded and continues to be recorded on the Complainants's payslip as a taxable payment. It is not an Expenses incurred by the Complainant. It clearly falls within the definition of a wage as set out in section 1 of the Act. The Payment in this case — as clearly confirmed by Complainants payslip — is and was at all times was a contractual entitlement and not an expense. This has been upheld by the WRC and Labour Court in two prior decisions specifically concerning the facts of this case.

ARE THE DEDUCTIONS LAWFUL

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

"Where—

(a)             the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an Respondent  to an Complainant is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the Complainant 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 Complainant by an Respondent  on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the Complainant, 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 Respondent  from the wages of the Complainant on the occasion".

Section 5(1) of  The Payment of Wages Act clearly requires that for a deduction to be lawful that deduction must be authorised by statute or authorised by a term of the Complainant's contract,.

In this case there is no statutory document made or any instrument made under statute which would have allowed the Respondent  to make any deduction and therefore in those circumstances the deduction is an unlawful deduction from the Complainants wages.

Similarly there is contractual term in the Complainants contract that would justify any such deduction.

In this respect the Complainant again refers the Labour Court to the two decisions which have dealt with this particular case. See WRC Decision ADJ-00030074 -& Labour Court's determination NO. PWD236

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT S SUBMISSIONS IN ITS WRC DEFENCE

The Respondent has specifically stated in its original WRC submissions\defence that the monies involved here are travel expenses and do not fall within the definition of wages under the legislation. It is submitted that this matter has already been dealt with and decided upon by a court of final jurisdiction The Complainant again refers to the Labour Court decision on the specific facts of this case where it found that these formed part of the Complainants wages and were not expenses . The. Labour Court issued its determination under case reference No. PWD236. The Respondent  did not appeal this decision. The Respondent  paid the monies ordered by the Labour Court . The issue of whether or not the monies involved were wages has already been decided and that decision is that they are wages

The Respondent  is clearly attempting to once again re-raise issues which have already been decided by the Labour Court.

The Respondent  has also submitted that it cannot afford to pay 2 extra hours daily to the Complainant.

The Complainant submits that inability to pay does not provide justification for the deduction from wages. It is certainly not listed as one of the legitimate grounds for making a deduction from Complainants wages under section 5 of the act.

The Respondent  alleges that it had negotiated an uplift with the Main Contractor Sisk and had verbally agreed to pay the Complainant 2 hours travel time per day, but strictly on the condition that the Respondent  would be paid the respective amount by Sisk. Its states that Sisk ceased paying the uplift and as a result it is unable to pay 2 hours travel time to the Complainant . The Respondent  has sought to use this as justification to make the unlawful deductions

At the original Labour Court hearing written submissions were provided by the Respondent . At all times during that process the Respondent  was fully represented and advised by his legal representatives. They were given every opportunity at that time to fully set out the extent of his defence. No reference was made to any agreement with the main contractor or the fact that the payment of travel time to the Complainant was dependent on same. In fact the Respondent  specifically confirmed in his written submissions that he "did not get any contribution from Sisks each month towards an Complainants travel expenses". The Respondent  now appear to be changing his stance and contrary to what it had previously stated is now alleging that the travel pay was directly related to an agreed payment being received from Sisk, This is clearly contrary to what he had previously confirmed in writing at the original Labour Court hearing. It is clearly an attempt by the Respondent  to re-raise issues which have already been decided by the Labour Court having fully heard the case previously

The Respondent  in this case is clearly trying to attempt a second bite at the cherry following the previous Labour Court determination No. PWD236 of the 26 June 2023.

In addition the Respondent  has never produced any evidence whatsoever of being unable to pay . The only documentation which the Respondent  has provided is an email received from Sisk construction dealing with overtime which is dated the 4 August 2021 — four months after the initial unlawful deductions commenced.

The Respondent  has therefore sought to rely on a letter that he had not even received to justify making deductions from Complainants wages which he had commenced deducting four months earlier. This has been sole evidence submitted by the Respondent  to demonstrate his inability to pay and which the Complainant respectfully submits clearly demonstrates the complete lack of validity in this element of the Respondent 's defence. It is further noteworthy that at the hearing of the matter before the WRC he stated under oath that he received this email in April 2021

QUANTUM

(A)             Section 6 of the Act sets out the courts jurisdiction to make an Award in the event of decision in favour of the Complainant

6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 51 as respects a deduction made by an Respondent  from the wages or tips or gratuities] of an Complainant or the receipt from an Complainant by an Respondent  of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the Respondent  to pay to the Complainant compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be] (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that— (i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the Complainant in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or (ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the Complainant in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

(b ) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred

to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

(2) (a) An adjudication officer shall not give a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to a deduction or payment referred to in that subsection at any time after the commencement of the hearing of proceedings in a court brought by the Complainant concerned in respect of the deduction or payment.

(b) An Complainant shall not be entitled to recover any amount in proceedings in a court in respect of such a deduction or payment as aforesaid at any time after an adjudication officer has given a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the deduction or paymentJ

(B)              Under section 6(2( of the Payment of Wages Act the court can order the Respondent  to pay to the Complainant compensation of such amount (if any) as it thinks reasonable including an order directing the Respondent  to make payment up to twice the net amount of wages that should have been made to the Complainant under section 6(2(b).

(C)              In this respect these unlawful deduction of €104.50 per week constitutes a significant proportion of the Complainants weekly earnings The continued and unlawful deduction from our clients wages have been ongoing over the past three years — despite WRC and Labour Court decisions to the contrary. These have resulted in the Complainant being subjected to completely unnecessary and avoidable financial hardship by his Respondent .

(D)             Taking into account the background to this case and in particular the behaviour of the Respondent  and his continued breach of the legislation since 2020, we respectfully submit that this is a fit and proper case where the Labour Court would consider making an order for the maximum compensation .

CONCLUSION

Based on the facts of the case, the legislation and case law — including three specific W RC cases in relation to the particular facts of this case and one Labour Court appeal — , it is clear that this payment formed part of the Complainants normal weekly wage and fell within the definition of a wage is set out in section 1 of the act.

As the case has already been subjected to a final examination by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction namely the Labour Court's previous decision the Respondent  in this case is prohibited by the principle of res judicata from bringing the matter up again

The facts also clearly demonstrates that no grounds existed to justify the deductions made from the Complainants wages. The Payment of Wages Act specifically requires that for a deduction to be lawful that the prior written consent of the Complainant is required  No such written consent was provided in this case by the Complainant

The Payment of Wages Act requires that for a deduction to be lawful that deduction must be . authorised by statute or authorised by a term of the Complainant's contract,. In this case there is no statutory document made or any instrument made under statute which would have allowed the Respondent to make any deduction and therefore in those circumstances the deduction is an unlawful deduction from the Complainants wages. Similarly there is no contractual term in the Complainants contract that would justify any such deduction.

Accordingly it follows that the deduction in this case is unlawful under Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

These unlawful deduction of €104.50 per week constitutes a significant proportion of the Complainants weekly earnings The continued and unlawful deduction from the Complainants wages have been ongoing over the past three years — despite WRC and Labour Court decisions to the contrary. These have resulted in the Complainant being subjected to completely unnecessary and avoidable financial hardship by his Respondent . In the circumstances we would respectfully submit that this is the case where the WRC should exercise its discretion to make not for the maximum amount of compensation allowable and permitted under Section 6 of The Payment Of Wages Act

The conclusion of the WRC decision: ADJ-00048709 sums up clearly and accurately the position in this case in a nutshell and are worth repeating;

The background to this complaint is both very simple and quite extraordinary.

As can be seen in the complainant's submission he has twice brought a complaint on the same facts to the WRC and twice has had his complaint upheld. On one occasion an appeal to the Labour Court has also gone in his favour, and it appears as if the second WRC Decision is also under appeal.

The facts of the matters are very simple.

The complainant had been in receipt of two hours' payment per day which are inaccurately and interchangeably referred to as 'travel expenses' or (payment for) 'travelling time" in the amount of two hours pay.

The respondent unilaterally cut this in half in July 2021.

Much has been made of the origins of the payment, and the conditionality attached to it when it was agreed in 2018. In fact, these origins are irrelevant in the absence of some express agreement between the parties as to the circumstances in which it might be varied or ended. There is no such agreement.

There is the second consideration as to the status of the payment.

Again, there is no room for doubt here.

Whatever it may be called, it is not a travel expense in the accepted (including by the Revenue Commissioners) sense of the word. It is not reimbursement for business travel originating at the complainant's place of work and taking him to other places on business. It is fully taxed.

In its determination of the matter on identical facts to those in this complaint (save for a different cognisable period) the matter was first decided by the WRC in ADJ 33161 in January 2023. This was appealed to the Labour Court which upheld that decision in June 2023. The Labour Court decided. The Respondent accepted that since the Complainant had commenced work for him, he had received an additional payment at his normal hourly rate of 10 hours a week and that this payment was referred to as travel time. He also accepted that this payment was recorded on the Complainant's pay slip as a taxable payment and was not in respect of any expenses incurred by the Complainant. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties finds that the Complainant had a contractual entitlement to two hours of travel money per day and that during the cognisable period there was a shortfall in the payment of same to the value of €292.60.

Determination

The Court finds that the travel time payment in this case was a contractual entitlement and not an expense and that the complaint is well founded. The Court determines that the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant compensation of €292.60.

Both appeals fail the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

This decision of the Court was issued in June 2023 and quite what the respondent hoped to achieve by a return to the WRC in November 2023 with the same case is mystifying.

In due course, in January 2024 the Adjudicator issued her decision and unsurprisingly upheld the complaint.

A matter of a few months later the respondent returned to the WRC; nothing had changed in respect of any of the facts grounding the case and it is hard to know how the respondent has any expectation of a different outcome especially given the position taken by the Labour Court. Indeed, the subjection of the complainant by the respondent to the cost and inconvenience of a fourth hearing, to say nothing of his continuing losses is quite unnecessary and reprehensible

Preliminary Issue Travel Expenses under Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant alleges “My complaint relates to a failure by my Respondent  to pay my travel expenses and leave which were agreed as a specific term of contract. Travel expenses were agreed on as 2 hours per day paid true bank holidays and annual leave (...).”

The Respondent submits that expenses are not considered wages under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and so such complaint should not be investigated in this regard.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 states that: “wages”, in relation to an Complainant, means any sums payable to the Complainant in connection with his employment, including – (a) Any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment or otherwise, and (b) Any sum payable to the Complainant upon the termination by the Respondent  of his contract of employment without his having given to the Complainant the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition: (i) Any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the Complainant in carrying out his employment.

 As the amount pursued on this claim relates to travel expenses, it cannot be considered wages and therefore the instant claim shall not be investigated under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Respondent respectfully submits that there is no jurisdiction for the Adjudication Officer to investigate the complaint in this respect.

Therefore, considering that expenses are not reckonable as wages under the 1991 Act, the Respondent respectfully submits that there is no jurisdiction for the Adjudication Officer investigate the instant claim in such aspect. Deciding the preliminary issue prior to hearing the substantive matter.

In Kevin Stapleton v- Acushla Limited (ADJ-00037399) the Adjudication Officer decided on the preliminary issue as regards the time limit to file a complaint first before hearing the substantive case, which reflected a body of case law suggesting that an Adjudication Officer is Third Party Sensitive legally prevented from holding a substantive hearing until a decision on the preliminary points are in fact made.

In Guerin v SR Technics Ireland Limited UD969/2009, given the significant preliminary points raised, the Employment Appeals Tribunal moved to hear the preliminary matter first and reach a decision on same.

In Bus Eireann v SIPTU PTD8/2004, the Labour Court indicated that a preliminary point should be determined separately from other issues that could lead to considerable savings in time and expense and where the point was a question of law.

 In the case of Donal Gillespie and Donegal Meat Processors UD/20/135 the Labour Court decided that it was “akin to asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction before it determines whether or not it has jurisdiction in the first instance. In determining the issue of jurisdiction, the Court must confine itself to the nature of the termination without enquiring into the fairness or otherwise of the decision itself, having regard to submissions made on the preliminary issue by both parties, the documents referred to therein and the relevant statutory provisions. Only if the court determines that it has jurisdiction to do so can it go on to consider the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal itself”.

Therefore, the Respondent respectfully requests that the adjudicator hear the preliminary points and adjourn to make a decision on the substantive point.

The Respondent is a Building Contractor in the construction sector, carrying out services connected to Plastering.

The Complainant was employed on 7th of April 2000 as a Carpenter. The Complainant is still working for the Respondent.

The Complainant has lodged a complaint under Section 6 of Payment of Wages Act, 1991 alleging that he did not receive travel expenses through bank holidays and annual leave. The Respondent denies these allegations.

Legal Submission.

The Complainant lodged a complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 on the 20th of November 2024 claiming that he did not receive travel expenses agreed as a specific term of contract on 2 hours per day through bank holidays and annual leave since 4th of July 2024.

The Respondent submits that no specific term in a contract of employment has been agreed as regards 2 hours per day relating to travel expenses for working days nor bank holidays or annual leave.

 It is respectfully submitted that in 2018 the Complainant informed the Respondent’s Director Dave Ryan that there was a Registered Employment Agreement in place under which it had to pay him 2 hours of travel time per day. Based on trust built in the relationship with the Complainant, who was working for the Respondent over 18 years, the Respondent’s Director, Mr. Dave Ryan, agreed to pay 2 hours travel time only if payment of equivalent amount was provided by the Main Contractor Sisk at that time.

The information above was confirmed by the Complainant under oath in the Hearing regarding the ADJ-00044843 according to the WRC Decision page 3: “By 2018, the complainant decided to pursue the payment of travel and was informed by the Respondent that “if the Main Contractor (named) will give it to me, I will pay you”.

It is submitted that the Respondent has negotiated an uplift with the Main Contractor Sisk in order to be able to pay the Complainant 2 hours travel time per day. Therefore, the agreement was based on two circumstances, the alleged Registered Employment Agreement, and the condition that the Respondent be paid equivalent amount by the Main Contractor Sisk.

In relation to the circumstances where the agreement was made, it is to be noted that the Registered Employment Agreements (REA’s) were struck out on the 9th of April 2013 by the Supreme Court in McGowan and Ors v The Labour Court and Ors1 for being deemed incompatible with the Constitution and Respondents and Complainants were no longer bound by them. The second circumstance failed when the Main Contractor Sisk ceased paying the uplift to the Respondent in 2021, that was the condition for the payment of 2 hours travel to the Complainant. The payment of amount equivalent to 2 hours travel time was made by the Main Contractor Sisk to the Respondent until 2021, so the Respondent could pass it along to the Complainant, however, since Sisk ceased paying the uplift in 2021, the Respondent was no longer bound to pay 2 hours travel time to the Complainant as agreed between the parties. Therefore, there is no legally binding agreement in place imposing the Respondent to pay travel expenses to the Complainant, not to mention on bank holidays or annual leave, when he is not working.

It is further submitted that, since Sisk ceased paying the uplift, the Respondent cannot afford to pay 2 extra hours daily to the Complainant. The Respondent has been attempting to renegotiate the terms of such agreement over the last couple of years, but the Complainant is refusing to engage.  In these circumstances, the Respondent has paid 1 hour travel time daily to the Complainant in accordance with the attached payslips as affordable by the Respondent.

Notwithstanding the above, and without prejudice of the Respondent’s position, should an award be made, the Respondent points out that no agreement over bank holidays and annual leave was made since the Complainant does not commute on these days.  It is therefore submitted that the within complaint is not well founded and the Complainant’s allegations cannot prevail

The Law;

[6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an Respondent  [from the wages or tips or gratuities] of an Complainant or the receipt from an Complainant by an Respondent  of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the Respondent  to pay to the Complainant compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) F13[the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be] (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the Complainant in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the Complainant in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

Complaint number  CA-00067529-001 stated;

“My complaint relates to a failure by my Respondent  to pay my travel money which was agreed as a specific term of my contract Travel money was agreed on as 2 hours per day paid true bank holidays and annual leave . I have not been paid €20.90 per day since the 4 July 2024 and these losses are ongoing in total there are 99 days pay due up to the 20 November 2024 (excluding weekends) . i am owed €2069.10 up to the 20 November 2024.”

Complaint Number CA-00070467-001 stated:

“My complaint relates to a failure by my Respondent  to pay my travel money and leave which were agreed as a specific term of my contract Travel money was agreed on as 2 hours per day paid true bank holidays and annual leave . I have not been paid €20.90 per day since the 21 November 2024 and these losses are ongoing and total there are 93 days . I am owed €1943.70 up to the 1 April 2024.”

The Parties relied on their written submissions and the contributions of their Representatives.  The Respondents ground that the amounts due were travel expenses and not wages has been previously litigated and it was decided by the Labour Court that the amount was wages and subject to the Act. I see nothing new that would dissuade me from this conclusion and therefore I accept jurisdiction of the substantive complaint on the basis the amounts claimed are wages..

A number of previous decisions relating to this matter have been issued by other Adjudicators and the Labour Court and found that the payment of the travel time was a contractual right and payable for holiday days. I have some sympathy for the Respondents argument that the amount should not be paid during holidays/public holidays (given no travel takes place on those days) but since previous decisions have concluded it is payable for those types of dates I do not see it as appropriate to amend that precedent.

The Respondents main arguments were two fold; the first was that the REA no longer applied and secondly that the Main contactor was not willing to pay the two hours per day (but the Respondent had since agreed to pay one hour per day). I have reviewed the previous decisions relating to this issue and see that the same conditions applied at the time of those Decisions as apply to the times of these complaints and therefore I don’t see anything different in the circumstances pertaining to the two main Respondent arguments now compared to the time of the previous decisions. I find in favour of the Complainant.

I award the Complainant €2069.10 under Complaint number  CA-00067529-001.

I award the Complainant €1943.70 under Complaint number CA-00070467-001.

Under Section 6 (b) of the Act an Adjudicator is allowed to increase the compensation awarded to a Complainant. Under Complaint number  CA-00067529-001, I award the Complainant an additional 1,000 Euros. Under complaint Number CA-00070467-001, I award the Complainant an additional 1,000 Euros.

Non Payment of Wages