Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noel Kelly

Go-Ahead Ireland Bus Limited

Representatives

Brian Hannigan, National Bus and Rail Union

 David Horgan, Stratis

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00062647-001

05/04/2024

The respondent operates buses under contract to the National Transport Authority, with 30 routes across Dublin city and county.  The complainant is a bus driver and he joined the company on October 24th 2022.  His wages are €680 gross per week.  He has been absent from work since June 19th 2023, when he complained of not feeling able to drive safely.

The complainant claims that he is entitled to be paid his wages for his absence in the six months before he submitted this complaint to the WRC on April 4th 2024.  He claims that he is not sick, and he has not been certified as sick and he regards himself as “stood down.”  The respondent asserts that, since June 19th 2023, the complainant has not been certified as fit to drive a bus.  Despite many attempts by the complainant and the respondent to confirm his medical fitness, no such confirmation or certification has been provided and the complainant remains absent from work with no pay.

As this complaint has been submitted under s.6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, my task is to consider if the complainant’s wages are properly payable.

Chronology of Events

On the form that he submitted to the WRC on April 4th 2024, the complainant said that on June 19th 2023, he “went sick due to a work-related incident.”  The cause of this incident was outlined in the submission provided by Mr Hannigan on behalf of the complainant. 

When he went on holidays on June 4th 2023, the complainant wasn’t paid his wages in advance.  This caused him some inconvenience and, on the first day of this hearing, he told me that when he was at work on June 19th, he was upset because of the failure of the respondent to resolve his grievance about his holiday pay.  He said that when he was driving his bus that day, four passengers complained that he drove past their stops, even though they had pressed the bell to indicate that they wished to disembark.  The complainant said that he felt that his anxiety about the dispute with his employer was impairing his ability to concentrate properly on his driving and, when he reached the terminus, he contacted the control office and notified them that he was driving the bus back to the depot and that he would not continue his shift.

The operations manager, Mr William Cullen, told the complainant to get a medical certificate from his doctor, explaining the reason for his absence from work.  At the hearing, he informed me that, in June 2023, when this incident occurred, he hadn’t seen a doctor since 2015.  He said that he didn’t want to return to his old doctor and, on June 21st, he visited a doctor nominated by the respondent to provide employees with two free medical checks a year.  This doctor is based in Citywest and I will refer to him as “the Citywest doctor.”  The Citywest doctor prescribed medication for high blood pressure and stress and advised the complainant to remain out of work and to come back for a review on July 5th.  When he returned for his appointment on July 5th, the Citywest doctor certified the complainant as fit to return to work the next day.

The complainant’s role as a bus driver is contingent on his medical fitness to meet specific standards for bus drivers and, due to the incident on June 19th, Mr Cullen referred him for an examination by the company’s occupational health consultants, Medmark.  I will refer to the occupational health consultant as “the Medmark doctor.”  This appointment was on July 6th.  The note of the complainant’s consultation with the Medmark doctor on that day refers to “extensive correspondence” between a doctor there and “Mr Kelly’s GP” in 2019.  The complainant only commenced working for the respondent in October 2022 and it emerged that Medmark had another employee of the same name as the complainant on their files.  Having combined the two patient files, the Medmark doctor determined that the complainant was not fit to work as a bus driver.

On July 17th, Mr Cullen wrote to the complainant and told him that the cert from the Citywest doctor wasn’t sufficient to allow him to return to work and that he was waiting on the results of the consultation with the Medmark doctor on July 6th.  Mr Cullen also suggested that a non-driving job might be available while they were waiting on the report from Medmark.

The complainant replied on July 25th and reminded Mr Cullen that, on July 5th, he had provided a certificate from the Citywest doctor that he was fit to return to work the following day.  He claimed that he was either laid off or on leave of absence and that he was entitled to be paid his wages.  He also said that he would consider a non-driving role.  On the same day, the HR business partner, Ms Olivia Lawlor, sent the complainant a copy of Medmark’s report dated July 24th.  Ms Lawlor informed the complainant that he was considered to be on long-term sick leave and she invited him to a meeting on July 27th. 

The Medmark report of July 24th shows that there was confusion about the two employees with the same name.  The administrators in Medmark decided that there was only one employee named Noel Kelly and merged two patient files.  It is apparent from the report that the Medmark doctor was concerned about the information provided by the complainant on July 6th which did not match with the information on file for the other Noel Kelly.  In his submission for the hearing, the complainant said that he was “gob smacked” by the report which referred to a condition that he did not have. 

On August 31st 2023, the HR business partner wrote to Medmark to indicate that there was an error in the medical report and that the complainant was not the person referred to in part of the report.  On September 4th, an administrator from Medmark replied and stated that the opinion of the doctor who examined the complainant on July 6th 2023 was that he was unfit for work.  The Medmark doctor stated that the complainant should nominate a GP and be seen regularly.  He was instructed to have his file from his old GP transferred to the new GP.  Finally, the new GP was to provide “robust corroboratory evidence” with regard to the complainant’s health.

The HR business partner, Ms Lawlor, arranged a meeting with the complainant on September 5th 2023, but the meeting was cancelled by the company an hour beforehand.  Another meeting was scheduled for two days later, but the complainant did not attend because he couldn’t afford the cost of transport.

On September 6th 2023, the doctor in Medmark wrote to the respondent and stated,

“Unless we know Mr Kelly’s medical conditions and medications, past medical history, compliance with / access to prescribed medications, he cannot be passed from a pre-employment perspective.”

On September 28th 2023, Ms Lawlor wrote to the complainant and instructed him to provide his medical records to Medmark from his old GP that he had last seen in 2015.  She also informed him that, as he had indicated to the doctor in Medmark that he had been prescribed medication for hypertension, he couldn’t work in any job until information was provided about his current diagnosis and medication.

On September 29th, the complainant wrote to Ms Lawlor and said that, at his consultation with the Medmark doctor on July 6th, he gave his written consent to Medmark to contact his old GP.

On October 6th 2023, in response to an intervention from a SIPTU official, Ms Lawlor, explained that Medmark would not accept a report from the Citywest doctor that the complainant visited for the first time in June 2023 and that they wanted a report from the doctor that he last saw in 2015.  On October 17th, Ms Lawlor sent the complainant a consent form to sign for his old doctor to provide a report.  The complainant replied on October 20th and said that he signed a consent form at the consultation with Medmark on July 6th.  He said that he had contacted Medmark and the doctor who had seen him on July 6th was on holidays until October 31st.  He attended at Medmark’s office on October 31st, but without an appointment and he didn’t speak to the doctor.  On November 7th, the complainant wrote to Ms Lawlor and asked her to make an appointment for him with the Medmark doctor.

The complainant had completed one year of service at the end of October 2023, and, in accordance with the company’s sick pay scheme, he received 15 days’ sick pay.

By December 8th 2023, it appears that Medmark was still not in possession of a consent form and Ms Lawlor sent the complainant a copy of the form by email, asking him to return it to Medmark or to her by December 13th. 

On December 11th, the complainant wrote to Ms Lawlor and stated that his view was that the consent form can only be signed in the presence of the Medmark doctor, because, when he met her on July 6th, she ensured him that she had all the information she needed to conduct her investigations.  The complainant said that he required a signed declaration from the Medmark doctor confirming that “the information she has received is the information she requires to ensure that there is no omission on my part.”  The complainant reiterated that he signed a consent form when he was seen by the Medmark doctor on July 6th 2023.

On December 20th, Mr Tom O’Connor of the NBRU wrote to Ms Lawlor seeking her assistance with resolving the complainant’s grievance and asking for his wages to be paid since he was certified as fit to work by the Citywest doctor on July 6th.  Mr O’Connor indicated that a complaint had been submitted to the WRC regarding the failure to pay holiday pay in advance.  On December 21st 2023, the complainant sent a signed consent form to Medmark by registered post.  On February 2nd, an administrator in Medmark confirmed that they had received a fee request from the complainant’s old GP to provide a report to them.

On February 7th 2024, Mr O’Connor of the NBRU wrote again to Ms Lawlor, this time asking for the issues to be resolved in accordance with the company’s grievance procedure.  The company did not reply to Mr O’Connor.

This complaint was submitted to the WRC on April 4th 2024.  On May 29th, Medmark wrote to the respondent and said that they were still waiting for a report from the complainant’s doctor.  On June 6th 2024, an administrator in Medmark wrote to Ms Lawlor and said that the complainant’s old GP sent them a note confirming that he had not been seen in the practice since 2015.  It appears that “clinical notes in their entirety” were sent to Medmark and these were not useful.  The Medmark doctor reiterated that the complainant was unfit to drive a bus pending clarification of his condition when he attended the Citywest doctor following the incident at work on June 19th 2023.

On June 13th 2024, a hearing took place at the WRC regarding the complainant’s dispute with his employer about the timing of holiday pay.  A decision was issued in favour of the complainant on June 28th.

On July 8th 2024, a partner in the Medmark practice wrote to the complainant and apologised for the mistake made from the merging of the two patient files.  The letter also stated that the Medmark doctor was not in a position to certify the complainant as fit for a safety critical role until she had details of his medication and the name of his prescribing doctor.

The hearing of this complaint opened on September 16th 2024.  The respondent arranged an appointment for the complainant to attend for an examination by a doctor in Medmark on October 4th, but the complainant did not attend.  At the hearing on November 8th, he said that he had no confidence in Medmark and that he would not attend any medical practice nominated by them.  He remains absent from work.  At the hearing, the complainant confirmed that he has taken up a job with a new employer, but he said that he wants to return to work with the respondent.

Much of the complainant’s case has been summarised in the previous section in which the chronology of events that led to him being out of work since June 20th 2023 have been set out.  In his submission, he referred to section 9 of his contract of employment which provides as follows:

“To qualify for sick pay, you must submit relevant sickness certificates to the company during the week to which they relate.  Failure to do so may result in the sick pay being withheld.”

It is the complainant’s position that he is not absent due to illness and that he has been certified by the Citywest doctor as capable of being at work.

He also referred to section 15.1 of his contract which provides that,

“The Company reserves the right to ask you not to attend work at any time at its sole discretion, during any period that you are not required to work, you will continue to be employed by the company and will continue to receive your normal pay and benefits, except that you will not receive any bonus or commission payment that is dependent on work being undertaken on sales of leads being generated.”

From July 2023 until March 2024, the complainant and his representatives tried to engage with the respondent to put the record straight regarding his fitness for work.  As the respondent has refused to engage in the grievance process and has refused to allow him to have his grievance heard under s.13 of the Industrial Relations Act, he is seeking a resolution under the Payment of Wages Act.

The complainant submitted that the sequence of events indicates that he has made numerous efforts to engage with his employer so that he can return to work.  The mix-up of the two patient names by Medmark and the failure to pursue the information that was required to bring the complainant’s absence to a conclusion led the respondent and Medmark to reach a wrong opinion about the complainant’s health.

On July 6th 2023, the Medmark doctor refused to certify the complainant as fit for work.  His position is that he was not sick and should have been considered to have been laid off and paid his weekly wages.  The complainant said that his concerns have been disregarded and he was put “on the long finger” and left without support or proper communication.

At the hearing on September 16th 2024, Mr Brannigan said that Medmark has been in possession of the complainant’s historical medical records since January 2024, but the company has failed to engage with him.  The complainant remains out of work because Medmark will not certify him as fit to drive until they examine him again and have details of his current medications.

Evidence of the Complainant, Mr Noel Kelly

At the hearing on September 16th 2024, the complainant said that, when he went to the Medmark doctor on July 6th 2023, he didn’t know why he was going there, because the Citywest doctor had certified him as fit to return to work.  The Medmark doctor looked for his historical information and he thought that she had all the information she needed to get this information.  He was not then certified as unfit for work and he claims that he was “stood down.”

When Medmark mixed up the two patient files, it seems that “alarms went off” in the company with regard to the complainant’s health.  At his meeting with the HR business partner on July 27th 2023, the complainant said that he pointed this out.  The complainant said that he consulted a solicitor about what happened and his solicitor wrote to the company, but got no response.  On February 7th 2024, when Mr O’Connor of the NBRU wrote to Ms Lawlor, he got no response either.  The complainant claims that the company adopted a “hands off” approach.

At the resumed hearing of this matter on November 18th 2024, the complainant said that he thinks that he’s entitled to be paid sick pay for 2024 as well as 2023. 

The complainant described what occurred on June 19th 2023, when he said that he wasn’t concentrating because he was “livid” about the holiday issue.  When he attended the Citywest doctor on June 21st, he was prescribed an anti-anxiety tablet, a tablet for blood pressure and another medication, the purpose of which he couldn’t recall. 

When he attended the Medmark doctor on July 6th 2023, the doctor said that he wasn’t fit to go back to work and she said that she would need to review his historical medical files.  The complainant said that he left the office “on the basis that she had everything she needed.”  However, the Medmark doctor didn’t contact any doctor.

The complainant referred to the Medmark report dated July 24th 2023 as “flawed.”  On August 3rd 2023, he said that he asked his new Citywest doctor to get files from his old GP and these were sent to the Citywest doctor on August 8th. 

The complainant said that, at the consultation with Medmark on July 6th 2023, he consented to Medmark seeking information from the Citywest doctor.  He said that no attempt was made to contact the Citywest doctor.  

At the end of the hearing, the complainant said that he will not attend an occupational health consultant nominated by the respondent and that he will go to his own doctor after this hearing.

Background

As a professional bus driver, the complainant is classified by the Road Safety Authority as a Group 2 driver.  His license to drive a bus is contingent on his fitness to meet national medical guidelines for bus drivers.  To ensure that he is medically fit to drive a bus, the respondent applies certain measures such as pre-employment medical checks and medical assessments at the time of renewal of a license.

The complainant passed his pre-employment medical before he commenced working for the respondent in October 2022.  His contract of employment provides that,

“During and throughout your employment the Company may require you to submit to a medical examination or to give permission for a medical report to be obtained from your doctor, or the Company’s doctor, should the Company deem it necessary.  Medical information will be considered throughout the course of your employment to determine the ongoing suitability to undertake bus driving duties.”

After one year of employment with the company, employees who are absent due to illness are entitled to 15 days’ pay in a rolling 12-month period.  Entitlement to sick pay is conditional on the employee attending a medical examination by the occupational health doctor, or providing a medical report to the occupational health doctor from their own doctor.

The complainant went absent due to feeling unwell at work on June 19th 2023.  He attended Medmark on July 6th.  The Medmark doctor wrote that the complainant told her that, on June 19th, while he was driving a bus, he was distracted and angry because of a dispute with his employer and he returned to base and went home, because he could not risk killing passengers.

On July 24th, the Medmark doctor wrote to the company and stated that,

“It is not possible to support Mr Kelly’s medical fitness to return to his role as a professional bus driver until a report from his current treating GP has been received corroborating his account of robust mental health, his current medications which he could not recall, the indications of commencing him on an antihypertensive and the duration of its use without disclosed side effects which may interfere with driving, any other new diagnoses and his recent blood pressure readings.  This is in compliance with the attached pages of the current medical fitness to drive guidelines for group 2 professional drivers.”

Although there has been a series of correspondence between Medmark and the company since July 24th 2023, there has been no confirmation that the complainant is medically fit to drive a bus.

The Employer’s Duty under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005

Section 23(1) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 places an obligation on employers to ensure that their employees are medically capable of carrying out their roles.  Where they are notified by an employee of a medical impairment, they are required to take the necessary measures to minimise the risk of an accident to the employee or others.

The job of a bus driver is subject to specific legislation and regulations set out in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and in the Road Traffic Acts 1961.  Based on the medical opinion of its medical consultants, there is an objective justification for the respondent’s decision not to permit the complainant to drive a bus or to do any other work.

In his submission, Mr Horgan referred to s.5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 which provides that, to ground a complaint under the Act, wages must be properly payable.  In this regard, he referred to the decision of the Labour Court in Tesco Ireland Limited and Sharon Brennan[1], where, referring to the decision of the High Court in Marek Balens v Tesco Ireland Limited[2], the Court pointed out that the first thing to consider in Ms Brennan’s case was, were her wages properly payable? 

Mr Horgan submitted that the complainant was not entitled to be paid sick pay when he commenced on sick leave in June 2023, because, having joined the company in October 2022, he had less than one year of service at that time.  When he completed one year of service in November 2023, he was paid for 15 days’ absence.  The respondent’s position is that the complainant has been paid all the wages that are properly payable in accordance with the company’s sick pay policy.

At the hearing on November 8th 2024, Mr Horgan said that the complainant is currently considered not fit to drive a bus.  On October 4th 2024, an appointment was made for him to be assessed by the Medmark doctor, but the complainant stated that he did not want to be assessed.  An appointment was made with a different doctor on October 16th, but this wasn’t suitable for the complainant and he now has an appointment for November 18th. 

Mr Horgan accepted that there have been delays in their efforts to progress the complainant to a return to work, but he said, “we need a willing partner.”  He said that the respondent wants the complainant to come back to work, but that he needs to be certified as fit by an occupational health consultant.

The HR business partner, Ms Lawlor, stated that the complainant gave no written consent for Medmark to contact his old doctor.  She said that this started a process of delays from July 2023 until January 2024.  Ms Lawlor said that an entire file was sent to Medmark, which was not useful, and a written report was requested. 

Conclusion

Mr Horgan said that the decision to prevent the complainant from driving one of its buses is based on objective medical evidence and Irish law and road safety regulations.  The complainant has been paid the wages that are properly payable to him in accordance with the company’s sick pay scheme.  

The Relevant Law

This complaint has been submitted under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act.”).  Under the heading, “Interpretation,” a definition of wages is provided at s.1:

“[W]ages in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer 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 employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice.”

From sub-section (a) above, it is clear that sick pay is regarded as wages, whether this is set out in a contract of employment, or “otherwise,” which means by some other arrangement such as a company-union agreement.

The main objective of the Act is to place an obligation on employers to provide employees with a detailed payslip (section 4) and to prohibit unlawful deductions from wages (section 5).  In the complainant’s case, we are concerned with the failure of his employer to pay him any wages, and this is provided for at s.5(6)(b) of the Act below:

(6) 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.

I understand from this section and, taking my authority from the judgement of the High Court in Marek Balens v Tesco Ireland, my first task is to determine if the complainant’s wages were properly payable when he was absent from work from July 6th 2023, because he didn’t provide the occupational health consultant with information about his medical history, details of his current medical conditions and the medications he had been prescribed on June 21st 2023.

The Sick Leave Act 2022 provides that, with effect from January 1st 2023, employees are entitled to three days’ statutory sick pay.  In January 2024, this was increased to five days.  When the complainant was absent in June 2023, he was entitled to three days’ statutory sick pay.  The respondent’s sick pay scheme is applicable after one year of service, when employees become entitled to 15 days’ paid sick leave.  When he completed one year of service in October 2023, the complainant was paid for 15 days’ sick leave.  It is the respondent’s position that the complainant is medically unfit for work and that he has used up all his sick pay entitlements.  The complainant argues that he is not sick, but that he has been “stood down.”

Findings

The evidence presented to me at the hearing of this complaint shows that, on July 5th 2023, the Citywest doctor provided the complainant with a certificate to the effect that he was fit to return to work the following day.  However, on that day, the Medmark doctor had concerns about his fitness for the safety critical role of driving a bus.  It seems to me that the Medmark doctor’s concern arose from,

1.       The complainant telling her that he had not attended a GP since 2015;

2.       That he had no regular GP and that he did not intend to return to the doctor he saw in 2015;

3.       That, on June 21st 2023, when he consulted the Citywest doctor, he was prescribed medication for anxiety and hypertension;

4.       That he could not say if he needed to remain on the medication or when he would be reviewed.

At some point between July 6th and July 24th 2023, Medmark made a mistake and mixed up the complainant’s file with that of another patient of the same name.  The two employees had been referred to Medmark by the respondent, but one was seen in 2019, whereas the complainant only commenced working with them in October 2022.

When he received the July 24th report, the complainant identified the mistake and he reported this to the HR business partner when he met her on July 27th.  For some reason which has not been explained, there was a gap of more than a month until August 31st 2023, when the HR business partner wrote to Medmark and pointed out the mistake.  The Medmark doctor replied on September 6th 2023 and advised that the complainant could not be passed as fit for work until he nominated a new GP, had his files transferred from his old GP and, until there was confirmation regarding any current medications or conditions.  The HR business partner, Ms Lawlor, wrote to the complainant on September 28th 2023 and asked him to provide this information.

The complainant’s position is that he gave consent to the Medmark doctor on July 6th 2023, to contact the Citywest GP to obtain details about his medical history.  The Medmark doctor wanted historical records from the complainant’s GP from before 2015.  It was only in December 2023, when, on foot of a consent form that he sent to Medmark by registered post on December 21st, the complainant’s old GP contacted them about a fee for providing the file.

I note also however, that, on June 4th 2024, the Citywest doctor wrote to the company and confirmed that they had received the complainant’s file from his old doctor on August 9th 2023.  It is apparent therefore, that all the information that Medmark required, including the complainant’s medical history and the nature and purpose of the medication prescribed to him in June 2023, was in the possession of the Citywest doctor in August 2023, but that it was never requested from that source.

I know from the respondent’s submission that the job of a bus driver is a safety critical role and that drivers must be assessed as fit for work based on certain medical criteria.  I have no doubt that hypertension is a specific risk factor for a bus driver and, until the occupational health consultant in Medmark had the information she needed to pass the complainant as fit, he could not be permitted to return to work.

I accept that there was resistance on the part of the complainant to getting the information from his old GP that he hadn’t seen since 2015.  I accept also that he didn’t attend an appointment with Medmark on June 29th 2023 and that he didn’t attend a meeting in the company on September 7th 2023, following a last-minute cancellation of a meeting on September 5th.  He attended at Medmark without an appointment on October 31st 2023, which wasn’t helpful, and he refused to attend an appointment 12 months later, on October 4th 2024.

Faced with this defiance, it was the responsibility of the respondent’s managers to bring matters to a conclusion and to do this with the support of their occupational health consultant.  It is my view that the managers and Medmark had a duty to persist in the task of getting the complainant back to work.  I agree with Mr Horgan who said that they “needed a willing partner,” but, I find it difficult to understand why there was no response to the overture from the NBRU in December 2023 and February 2024 to resolve the issue though the grievance procedure. 

In summary, it is the responsibility of an employer to manage the obstructiveness of their employee and the task of procuring necessary medical records is not outside the competency of a professional occupational health service.  It is my view that the management and Medmark should have acted with a greater degree of energy, persistence and tenacity to get the complainant back to work.

Conclusion

I agree with the complainant that he was not absent from work due to illness.  The Citywest doctor he attended on June 5th 2023 certified that he was fit for work but, in circumstances that are entirely reasonable and necessary, the respondent’s doctor decided that a further investigation was needed.  It is my view that it was the responsibility of the management, in collaboration with the occupational health consultant, to expedite that investigation.  I am satisfied that the complainant was absent on the instructions of his employer and, in these circumstances, section 15.1 of his contract of employment applies:

“The Company reserves the right to ask you not to attend work at any time at its sole discretion, during any period that you are not required to work, you will continue to be employed by the company and will continue to receive your normal pay and benefits, except that you will not receive any bonus or commission payment that is dependent on work being undertaken on sales of leads being generated.”

Based on my review of the chronology that led to this complaint and the evidence presented to me at the hearing, I am satisfied that, while he was absent waiting for the occupational health consultant to complete their assessment of his fitness for work, the complainant’s wages were properly payable.  It follows therefore, that the failure to pay him any wages amounts to a deduction from his wages.  In breach of s.5(1) of the Act, I am satisfied that this deduction was not authorised and was in fact an illegal deduction.

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation equivalent to the wages he was not paid from October 6th 2023 until he submitted this complaint to the WRC six months later on April 5th 2024.  Based on his weekly pay of €680.00, I calculate the complainant’s gross earnings during this period to be €17,680.  He received three weeks’ sick pay in November 2023, and I have therefore reduced the amount to be paid in compensation to €15,640.  In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (as amended), I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount.  Estimating the deductions for PAYE, PRSI and USC, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €13,000.

Payment of wages, absence from work