PWD2540

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00052554 (CA-00064363-001)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act,

1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. 

The following is the Court's Decision:

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Leitrim Animal Welfare Centre Ltd against an Adjudication officer’s Decision ADJ-00052554 CA-00064363-001 given under the Payment of Wages Act 1991(the Act) in a claim by Ms Mc Morrow that she suffered an unlawful deduction from her wages contrary to an existing agreement to pay her 15% above the minimum wage rate. The Adjudication Officer found in favour of Ms Mc Morrow’s claim and awarded her compensation of €1,500.

In this Determination the parties are referred to as they were at first instance.  Hence Leitrim Animal Welfare Centre Ltd is referred to as ‘the Respondent’ and Ms Mc Morrow as ‘the Complainant’

1 Background

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from March 2004 until she accepted voluntary redundancy in June 2024. It is the Complainant’s submission that her wages were unilaterally reduced commencing 5 January 2024. The Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 27 June 2024. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act is 28 December 2023 to 27 June 2024.

2 Summary of Complainant’s case

On 17 September 2012 the Complainant was promoted to Kennel Supervisor, and it was agreed that in recognition of her new role and additional responsibilities she would be paid the minimum wage plus 15%. This agreement was set out on the Respondent’s headed paper, signed by the then Director and dated 23 March 2017. The rate was then paid to the Complainant until the end of December 2023. Without any warning the Respondent in January 2024 started making deductions ranging from €8.19 to €70.20 per week from the Complainant’s wages giving a total deduction over a six-month period of €1,496.62. The Complainant raised the deduction with the Respondent at a meeting on 28 February 2024, but the Respondent sought to classify this as the Complainant seeking a pay increase. The Union on behalf of the Complainant submitted that the wages properly payable to the Complainant were the minimum wage rate plus 15% and it was not open to the Employer to unilaterally change that.

3 Summary of Respondent’s case 

 The Respondent in their submission denied that the Complainant’s rate of pay was minimum wage plus 15 % they accepted there were some deductions in error in January 2024, but they had rectified that. They sought to rely on an Adjudication Officer’s decision from 2012 which they believed allowed them to decide to not pay the agreed rate if the Respondent’s finances were in a precarious position. They did not dispute that this recommendation predated the written agreement by a number of years, and that there was no reference in the written agreement to possible deferral or withdrawal of the 15% element of her wages. The Respondent also confirmed that it had been paid consistently since that letter up to 31 December 2023. They did not dispute that they had not informed the Complainant in advance that they were stopping this element of her wage.

4 The applicable law

Section 5 of the Payment of Wage Act 1991 deals with regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers and in particular section 5(6)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 (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”.

5 Discussion and Decision

The question for the Court to consider is what was properly payable during that period and then to establish what was actually paid. The Court considered the letter of 23 March 2017 which clearly stated that the Complainant’s new weekly wage was minimum wage plus 15% and provided for that rate to be backdated to 2016 with arrears to be paid over specific period. The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant had received that rate up until the end of December 2023. No agreement that superseded the 23 March 2017 agreement was opened to the Court nor was there any suggestion that such an agreement had been entered into. On that basis the Court determines that the wage properly payable during the relevant period was the minimum wage plus 15 %.

The appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld. The Complainant to be paid compensation of €1,500.

The Court so decides. 

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
15 October 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.