Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jason  Brennan

Quote Devil Ltd

Representatives

 self 

Kiwana Ennis BL/Claire McDermott Flynn O'Driscoll

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-00071241-001

01/05/2025

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

CA-00071242-001

01/05/2025

A discussion took place between the Complainant and his Manager about another role that didn’t attract the same level of pay or commission. That request to move to a lower-level role was agreed to; however, the terms and conditions attached to the role appear to have been left for further discussion.  The Complainant maintains that at a point his salary was reduced without his agreement. That was denied and to show good faith the reduction was undone so that the parties could agree to the new terms.  There were some cross wires about what exactly was agreed when the move took place. The Complainant believed that his new salary would be pegged to his peers, and the actual reduction was more according to the Complainant.

The Complainant subsequently left his job.

The Complainant takes issue with how the move was handled and that is why he brought this claim.

The Respondent stated that no amount lawfully payable is owing and that the terms of the original contract were in fact honoured. On that basis the claim has no merit and should be rejected.

Payment of Wages CA-00071241-001:

The Act provides for 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.

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, it would appear in this case that while the parties did agree in principle that the Complainant would move to a lower-level role, the precise terms were not agreed. Once that became clear the employer reverted to the terms in place prior to the role change; although, the employee was no longer fulfilling the role that those terms related to.

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.

In this case a deduction was made and technically it was not a computational error rather a misunderstanding.

As no agreement was in place between the parties an unlawful deduction did occur on the occasion that it was lawfully payable; however, that unlawful deduction was subsequently corrected.

The Respondent’s position is as follows:

A summary of the timeline of events following the issuing of the 29th of April Payslip reflecting the updated salary, is set out below for ease of refence:

Payslip was sent on the 29th of April 2025 at which time the Complainant refused to continue to work. The Complainant did not work from the afternoon of 29th April to 8th May inclusive. As a gesture of goodwill in light of his tenure, the Respondent paid the Complainant in full for this leave and no deduction was made.

On 30th April 2025 the Respondent emailed the Complainant requesting a meeting to try to resolve the matter and the Complainant declined to meet.

 On 1st May 2025 the Complainant met Phil Kavanagh with Aisling Kenny and Karl Kessie present as witnesses to discuss situation. The conversation was not constructive as the Complainant refused to cooperate in the discussion to resolve the matter…

 On the 1st May 2025 the Complainant submitted his WRC Complaint.

 On the 8th May 2025 the Complainant resigned.

On the 8th May 2025 the Respondent emailed the Complainant to advise that they would rectify the April payment and shared the revised payslip on 9th May 2025 and also asked the Complainant to reconsider his resignation notice.

 On the 9th May 2025 the Complainant returned to work to work out his notice period. The Respondent is of the view that the Complainant did not work nor make any sales in the period from the 9th May to the 6th June 2025 while working his notice.

 The Respondent accepted the Complainant’s resignation on the 19th of May 2025.

The Complainants employment ceased on the 6th of June 2025.

The Respondent paid the Complainant in full for May and for the days up to the 6th June at the higher rate.

 The Respondent’s position in respect of the Complainant’s complaints is as set out in the letter from the Respondent to the WRC dated and 16th May 2025 is as follows:

CA-00071241-001 (Pay)

The underpayment of Jason Brennan’s salary was rectified; he was paid his April 2025 salary in full. The amended payslip for reference, was issued to him on 9th May 2025.

CA-00071242-001 (Terms and Conditions of Employment)

As there was no final decision made in respect of changes to Jason Brennan’s contract of employment, no change had been made to Mr. Brennan’s terms and conditions of employment. It is therefore our position that neither claim can be substantiated.

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 deduction while rectified was unlawful as the amount not paid on that occasion was properly payable. However, I determine the breach to be a technical one as the payment was subsequently paid promptly.

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 promptly rectified and, in the circumstances, I determine that no award of compensation should be made.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00071242-001:

The Complaint is well founded.

Again, technically there was a breach when the amount paid was less than what was detailed in the contract of employment.

However, the Act does provide the following in terms of redress at section 7(2):

In relation to a complaint of a contravention under change section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6D, 6E, 6F, or 6G,  and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph €] order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

While a change in a term of the contract did occur without proper consultation and was not communicated in writing as specified in the Act, that change was reverted and promptly rectified. In those circumstances it would be unjust to make an award of compensation for the technical breach. I determine that no award of compensation should be made.

Payment of Wages CA-00071241-001:

The Complaint is well founded.

In this case a deduction was made and technically it was not a computational error rather a misunderstanding.

As no agreement was in place between the parties an unlawful deduction did occur on the occasion that it was properly payable; however, that unlawful deduction was subsequently corrected.

As the deduction while unlawful at a time, the facts show that the terms of the contract were subsequently fully honoured.

The Act details what redress can 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 promptly rectified and, in the circumstances, I determine that no award of compensation should be made.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00071242-001:

The Complaint is well founded.

Again, technically there was a breach when the amount paid was less than what was detailed in the contract of employment.

However, the Act does provide the following in terms of redress at section 7(2):

In relation to a complaint of a contravention under change section 3, 4, 5, 6, 6D, 6E, 6F, or 6G,  and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph €] order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

While a change in a term of the contract did occur without proper consultation and was not communicated in writing as specified in the Act, that change was reverted and promptly rectified. In those circumstances it would be unjust to make an award of compensation for the technical breach. I determine that no award of compensation should be made.

Unlawful Deduction-Well Founded-No Compensation