Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Silviu  Lascarache

Lkq (Distribution Ireland) Limited Lkq Euro Car Parts

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Hannah Rowe, IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068572-001

11/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068572-002

11/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068572-003

11/01/2025

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

CA-00068572-004

11/01/2025

There were four employment rights complaints.

Three of these were under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

The first, CA-00068572-001 was a complaint that there had been no statement of terms and conditions of employment furnished and CA-00068572-002 that there was no statement of core terms

Complaint CA-00068572-003 was that the complainant had not been notified of a change to his terms of employment.

CA-00068572-004 was made under the Payment of Wages Act,1994 that the complainant was due pay. In the amount of  €270.76.

Complaints CA-00068572-001 and 002 were initially withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing.

This left complaints CA-00068572-003 and 004.

The first of these related to a change in the complainant‘s starting time and the second which was a claim for the payment of €270 as a result of a change in the rate of payment for working on a Saturday.

The complainant agreed an earlier starting (and finishing) time with his supervisor but in due course this reverted to the original start time. He was not notified of this.

The other complaint arises from the fact that the respondent operates a system of fixed premium payments for working on a Saturday. It later emerged that the complainant (and others) had been placed on a higher rate than that to which he was entitled.

This higher rate was then terminated, and he claims the difference between his actual payment and the previous, higher premium.

The respondent confirms that the statutory statement of terms of employment was sent to the complainant on January 30th, 2024, and evidence was submitted of his signature on the document on that date.

The respondent also complied with the requirement to provide the core terms of employment within the specified.

In respect of the third claim under this act the complainant was asked to revert to the contract hours specified in his statutory statement.

In relation to the complaint under the Payment of Wages act the respondent alleges that his pay was cut and that he had not been paid €270.76 since October 2024.

In fact, all wages property payable to him according to his contract were paid. At no point did the complainant receive payment below his contractual salary.

He had been working overtime and was paid an incorrect premium rate; an error which, when discovered,  was then corrected. He reverted to a flat rate of overtime in October 2024.

As a gesture of goodwill the respondent did not seek to recoup the overpayments.

There were originally four employment rights complaints in all and two of these were withdrawn at the hearing.

This left Complaint CA-00068572-003 that he had not  been notified of a change in his terms of employment as provided for in Section 5 (1) of the Act, and Complaint CA-00068572-004 in relation to pay that was due to him in the amount of €270.76.

In respect of the first of these the background was that the complainant had been facilitated with an informal arrangement to start his working day ten minutes earlier than that provided for in his written Terms statement.

This was to accommodate his family circumstances. It may be argued that this particular change should have been recorded as a change in his Terms, but it was not.

Paradoxically the complainant argues that the change about which he actually complains was effected without his consent, but he had fully consented to this first change.

Then, he was required to revert to the starting time specified in the statutory statement, so in fact it did not require to be amended at all at that stage as the respondent was simply giving effect to its terms.

Accordingly, no breach of the Act occurred.

His second complaint arises because of the incorrect application of the correct  premium rate for working on a Saturday. When this was discovered, the respondent terminated it.

Section 5 (6)of the payment of wages act 1991 states

‘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 [..] then […]  the amount of the deficiency […] shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion’.

It will be clear from this, as the respondent has submitted, that the issue is whether the wages were ‘properly payable’.

In fact, as may be discerned from the above the amounts claimed relate to discretionary overtime and relate to the correct rate to be paid for it. There is no contractual or statutory right to such payments, and they cannot be considered to be ‘properly payable’ as required by the Act.

The complainant simply reverted to the premium payment correctly due to him under the respondent’s policy. His wages were fully paid as provided for in his contract of employment.

Accordingly, the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00068572-001, 002, 003 and 004 are not well founded

Wages, terms and Conditions of Employment.