Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Inmar Iomer

Bidvest Noonan Ltd Industrial

Representatives

self

 Jean Cogavin HR 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-00072843-001

26/06/2025

The Complainant summarises his complaint as follows:

My name is Inmar Iomer, and I am submitting a formal complaint against my former employer, Bidvest Noonan (ROI) Limited, for unlawfully deducting €2,126 from my salary on 23 February 2025, in violation of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Before this deduction was made, I received an email from the company informing me of their intention to withhold this amount. I replied clearly, stating that I did not agree and that such a deduction was not legal. I never signed any agreement that would allow this type of deduction to be taken from my salary.

Despite my objection, the company went ahead and deducted the amount from my final wages.

Furthermore, my final payslip does not reflect the actual number of hours I worked and does not mention or explain the deduction of €2,126. This lack of transparency and the absence of any contractual basis for the deduction makes their action even more serious.

Because of this, I was left without money for rent or basic needs, which caused me serious stress and hardship.

I have all the necessary evidence to support my complaint, including my final payslip and the email exchange showing that I did not agree to this deduction. I respectfully request that this case be formally reviewed and that appropriate action be taken.

The Employer replied by stating that a contractual agreement was in place and that the Complainant agreed to the deduction and was consulted about how the deduction would be made.

The Respondent texted the Complainant on the 20th of February 2025 to state that the cost of the programme was €1250 and wages paid for the course was €876 and the amount owing was €2126.

There are conflicting exchanges between the parties.

The Complainant stated that there was no legal basis for directly making the deduction from his last salary. He stated that such a deduction cannot be made as the Act does not allow an employer to make such deduction without his written consent at the time of the deduction. Since he had not given his consent any deduction from his salary was a direct violation of the law.

While the Complainant acknowledged that the training cost should be reimbursed there was no agreement for it to be deducted directly from his salary. The agreement that he signed was not an amendment of his employment contract.

The Complainant and Employer entered into an agreement to pay for training, and the full cost of that training was to be reimbursed if the employee left prior to completing 2 years with the Company. The employee signed that agreement and it became part of his contract of employment. He failed to fulfil that term of the contract. The deduction prior to occurring was clearly detailed in an email dated 20th of February 2025 that specified the actual cost of the training to be €1250 and that the wage paid while participating on  the course was €876.

On the 15th of October 2024 the Complainant was offered specialised training referred to as Rope Access level 3 course, at Abseil Access Limited. It was a condition of the programme that an employee would remain with the Company for a minimum of 2 years after receiving the training for the training fee to be paid by the Company. Otherwise, a full refund would be repaid prior to leaving the Company. That term was agreed to by the Complainant and the signed agreement was opened at the hearing. That is a binding contractual term.

There are conflicting exchanges between the parties.

On the 20th of February 2025 the Operations Manager Mr Tiberiu Muresan emailed the Complainant detailing how the calculation of €2126 was worked out. The next day 21st February 2025 by email at 13.03 the Complainant replied and stated:

“Its ok like this regarding the financial part for both of us.

Regarding abseiling equipments, we gived them to David and he said its all ok”

The Act obligates the Employer to do the following:

Statements of wages and deductions from wages.

4.—(1) An employer shall give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing specifying clearly the gross amount of the wages payable to the employee and the nature and amount of any deduction therefrom and the employer shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates and the statement are treated confidentially by the employer and his agents and by any other employees.

In writing covers email and electronic correspondence.

The Complainant relies on the following section to state that he never authorised the deduction:

Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers.

5.—(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) 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, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

An employment contract is not fixed in stone and can be changed by agreement. That change to the Complainant’s contract occurred when he signed a document dated the 15th of October 2024 which stated:

“I have read and agree to the above terms and understand that sponsorship provided is conditional to fulfilling these terms. I hereby accept that if I do leave in advance of the 2 year term as specified above, I will repay the Company 100% of the course cost prior to leaving the business.”

On signing this agreement, it became part of the employment contract.

It could be argued that making the deduction in one amount was harsh and unreasonable. However, the facts show that the Complainant has left the country and a payment in instalments carries risk for the employer. The amount of deduction was equivalent to about 2 weeks pay and because it was deducted at source meant it was the most tax effective way for it to be repaid. An employee can be sick for 2 weeks and receive no payment. I find that the arrangement for repayment was not unreasonable or harsh.

The complaint is not well founded because there was an employment contractual term that provided for the deduction which was signed by and agreed by the Complainant many months prior to the deduction arising due to the failure to work a full 2 years after receiving the training. As the employment contract had been amended voluntarily and signed by the employee, the deduction was lawful.

An employment contract is not fixed in stone and can be changed by agreement. That change to the Complainant’s contract occurred when he signed a document dated the 15th of October 2024 which stated:

“I have read and agree to the above terms and understand that sponsorship provided is conditional to fulfilling these terms. I hereby accept that if I do leave in advance of the 2 yer term as specified above, I will repay the Company 100% of the course cost prior to leaving the business.”

On signing this agreement, it became part of the employment contract.

The complaint is not well founded because there was an employment contractual term that provided for the deduction which was signed by and agreed by the Complainant many months prior to the deduction arising, pursuant to the express term that was agreed to. As the employment contract had been amended voluntarily and signed by the employee,  the deduction was lawful.

Lawful deduction-Training Cost