Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrik  Cosic

Lidl

Complainant

Respondent

 Parties

Patrik Cosic

Lidl

Representatives

  Self

Scott Jevons Employee Relations Manager

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-00071527-001

13/05/2025

The Complainant states:

“My contractual amount for March Salary of this year was supposed to be 2192.40 Euros, but a Total gross of 1903.45 Euros was paid off. I think Company believes they have the right to make such deductions based on a term in Contract called "Deductions". That term says "By signing this Contract of Employment you authorize the Company to deduct from your pay (including holiday pay, sick pay, enhanced maternity benefit or, bonus or commission, payment in lieu of all or part of the notice period) any amounts, which are owed by the Employee to the Company (including any loans, overpayments, relocation policies, excess holiday/sickness, expenses etc.). By signing this agreement you consent to any such deduction for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991."

The claim if for €288.95

The Respondent unlawfully deducted €288.95

The Complainant stated that the amount should not have bee deducted and has been paid.

The Act states that:

And section 5(6) states:

(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.

The Employer informed the Adjudicator at the hearing that the deduction has been repaid and the complaint is conceded.

The leading case on what constitutes wages properly payable is:

In Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2020] IEHC 55 the Court concurred with the decision reached in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Ltd v Lacey [2005] IEHC 417 that the starting point in the analysis must be:

34. Section 5 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the making of deductions from wages save in certain circumstances. Section 5(6) provides that where 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, then, except insofar as the deficiency or non – payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non – payment should be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

35. Central to the court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which, if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments, it arose as a result of an error of computation.

36. The provisions of s. 5(6) of the Act of 1991 were considered by Finnegan P. in Dunnes Stores (Cornelscourt) Limited v. Lacey [2007] 1 I.R. 478. A Rights Commissioner had found in favour of the respondents holding that the cessation of service pay amounted to an unlawful deduction, which was upheld by the EAT. It was argued that the EAT should address the question of remuneration properly payable to an employee before considering the question of a deduction or whether a deduction was unlawful. Finnegan P. concluded at p. 482:-

“I am satisfied upon careful perusal of the documents relied upon by the respondents that the same cannot represent the agreement or an acknowledgement of the agreement contended for but rather contain a clear denial

of the existence of any such agreement. No other evidence of an agreement was proffered. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the Employment Appeals Tribunal erred in law in failing to address the question of the remuneration properly payable to the respondents, such a determination being essential to the making by it of a determination. Insofar as a finding is implicit in the determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal that the appellant agreed to pay to the respondents service pay and a long service increment, then such finding was made without evidence and indeed in the face of the evidence: I am satisfied that there has been no deduction of pay from the respondents within the terms of the Act of 1991 but rather their remuneration has been unilaterally increased by the appellant making a payment which recognises their long service in excess of that which was payable prior to the 18th September, 2002. In either case there has been an error or law. Accordingly I allow the appeal.”

37. This decision supports the proposition that the first matter which should be addressed by the Labour Court is to determine what wages are properly payable under the contract.

The Respondent has conceded the claim and made the payment that was properly payable.

In these circumstances redress must have regard to the payment made.

The Act details what redress should apply:

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 employer from the wages or tips or gratuities] of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer 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 employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

While a deduction was unlawfully made that was rectified and, in the circumstances, I determine that no award of compensation should be made.

I determine that the complaint is well founded.

The Respondent has conceded the claim and made the payment that was properly payable.

In these circumstances redress must have regard to the payment made.

The Act details what redress should apply:

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 employer from the wages or tips or gratuities] of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer 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 employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

While a deduction was unlawfully made that was rectified and, in the circumstances, I determine that no award of compensation should be made.

Deduction-repaid