Complainant

Respondent

Parties

S A H M  Rasel

Bidvest Noonan

Representatives

Ms Jean Cogavin

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-00070846-001

16/04/2025

The Complainant is a security guard working for the Respondent.

In March 2025 the Respondent made a deduction from his wages. He challenged this under the payment of wages act.

The Complainant outlined that he and his family had lived in Portugal running a small family business which unfortunately was adversely affected by the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis. He moved his family to Ireland having known many Irish living in Portugal.

He started with the Respondent in February 2025 having trained as a security guard and he is generally of the view that they are a good employer and have assisted him in maintaining a flexible working pattern so he can work multiple jobs.

In February 2025 he was initially assigned to a client site and went there for a period of induction training which involved working but on the basis that he was shadowing other staff. The site was a large plant in Southwest Dublin. While the Complainant was residing in Northwest Dublin he didn’t drive and the public transport was infrequent and unreliable, particularly in the context of the unsociable hours he was working. The location was untenable and after he raised this with his line manager that he could no longer work there and refused shifts on the site going forward.

His line manager put him into another site after a couple of weeks but asked him to go back to the original site for cover which he refused. She then deducted 48 hours of training time from his pay.

This put him under huge financial stress and he had difficulty meeting his rent and other basic expenditures.

He continues to work for the Respondent.

The Respondent provided detailed written submissions and Ms Cogavin of their Employee Relations  department presented their case.

The Complainant raised issues with HR shortly after the deduction.  They almost immediately refunded him 32 hours, a week after the deduction and before this complaint was filed.

They had initially taken the view that they could deduct 16 hours in line with his contract which states:

26 Training: Where training is provided for and paid by the company for new entrants and the employee leave the company: within 3 months. The company can deduct 16 hours pay for training.

The Respondent’s initial view was informed by the fact that the Complainant had ceased working at the site he was hired for. On review they decided that as he had continued working for them but on a different site that they deduction was not appropriate. They repaid him a further 16 hours on the 8th of May and €33 night premium payment on the 4th of June.

This matter does not concern training costs such as examination fees for a professional course which may be paid by an employer but ultimately involve a benefit to both the employer and employee. This matter concerns wages for time spent engaged in “on the job” training. This is working time which the Complainant was entitled to be paid for and was paid for in February 2025.

The Complainant then continued working for the Respondent but when he made it clear he would not return to the site they initially hired him for they deducted €642.60 from the wages owing to him in March for work carried out in that month.

Section 5 of the act prohibits deductions from wages and places the burden on the Respondent to establish the deduction was permitted under the act.

Section 5b provides that a deduction will be permitted under the act where the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment.

The Complainant’s contract of employment does provide that up to 16 hours of pay can be deducted from an employee for training where the leave the Company within 3 months.

Leaving aside the question whether such a deduction would be permitted under this act in any event, the Respondent does not dispute that the Complainant did not leave their employment and accepts that the above clause does not apply and that deduction was unlawful. The Respondent has apologised and paid the Complainant back the deduction in three payments in April May and June 2025.

While the unlawful deduction was paid back it is not disputed that it occurred. 

Section 6 of the act sets out that where an Adjudication Officer determines that a complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded he shall make a direction to the employer to pay to the employee 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 employee 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 employee 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.

A lawful deduction of €609.60 was made from the Complainant’s wages. He is not a highly paid worker and this put him under significant financial stress. While the Respondent eventually paid him back the wages owing to him I am of the view that it is still reasonable to require them to pay the Complainant compensation for the breach of his rights under this act.

In the circumstances I am of the view that €300 is reasonable.

I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €300 in compensation.