Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Finbar  Schregardus

Abbott Rapid Dx International Ltd.

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 IBEC

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-00071664-001

19/05/2025

The Complainant appeared in person and swore an affirmation at the outset of the hearing.

The Respondent was represented by IBEC with Ms. Anne Maire Lyons , HR Manager, giving evidence on Oath.

Both parties submitted submissions in advance of the hearing.

Both parties were repeatedly invited to open the documentation in evidence they wished to rely upon with two separate breaks given to allow parties time to identify the documentation they were referring to.

Lengthy oral evidence was given by both parties, however for the purpose of this decision the relevant evidence to the complaint before me has been considered.

Both parties availed of the opportunity to cross examine.

The Complainant, a Customer Service Specialist, was employed by the Respondent from 22 April 2024 to 21 April 2025. It was his evidence that he earned a monthly gross salary of €3,185.54.

His complaint concerned an alleged unlawful deduction of €1,659.20 from his wages.

The Complainant was on a period of sick leave beginning in January 2025. He met with the Occupational Health Physician on 25 January 2025 and subsequently met with his Line Manager and the HR Generalist, who advised him that he would be paid 70% of his full wage. It was his understanding that he would retain the Illness Benefit provided by the Department of Social Protection, in line with the Respondent’s Sick Pay Policy.

The Complainant stated that his payslips for January and February 2025 reflected full payment. His March 2025 payslip reflected 70% of his monthly wage, consistent with the agreement reached during the meeting on 27 January 2025.

However, prior to receiving his April payslip, he logged into his Revenue account and noted that his April 2025 wage due on 17 April 2025 was incorrect, showing an unlawful deduction of €1,659.20.

He gave evidence that a series of emails were exchanged between himself, the HR Manager (Ms Lyons), and payroll from 15 April 2025 in an attempt to clarify the situation, but these communications did not result in a resolution.

Ms Lyons gave evidence that the Complainant received and signed a contract of employment which included a clause regarding the deduction of wages.

The Respondent’s Sick Leave Policy was presented, and it was her evidence that the Respondent paid discretionary sick pay at a rate equivalent to the employee’s wages less the amount of Illness Benefit (€244 per week).

Ms Lyons engaged in email correspondence with the Complainant and also held a Teams call with him to clarify the situation. A follow-up letter dated 30 May 2025 was sent to the Complainant in an effort to fully explain the circumstances.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “Act”), provides : -

“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 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.”

Section 5(6) further provides

“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 Complainant’s contract of employment noted “20. Deductions

You hereby authorise the Company to deduct from your pay (including holiday pay, sick pay, bonus or commission and pay in lieu of notice) any amounts which are owed by you to the Company or any Associated Company (including but not limited to any loans, travel allowance, expenses float, relocation assistance).”

The Sick Pay Policy provided ”Sick pay is paid net of social welfare entitlements. This may be achieved either by a reduction in pay aligned with the social welfare entitlement, or by employees forwarding social welfare cheques to the company. The manager can explain which method applies.”

The Respondent accepted that a deduction was made on the basis that an overpayment had been made to the Complainant during a period of sick leave.

The Complainant submitted that he understood from his meeting in January 2025 that he was to retain the weekly Illness Benefit of €244, rather than submitting it to the Respondent, and that the Respondent would, in turn, pay him 70% rather than 100% of his wage.

Having carefully considered the evidence, and in particular the payslips received by the Complainant, alongside Ms Lyons’ evidence that wages were not paid in arrears, the following is noted:

January 2025: No deductions were made from his monthly payslip of €3,083.33, despite three days of sick leave during which he received Illness Benefit.

February 2025: No deductions were made from his monthly payslip of €3,083.33, despite 19 days of sick leave during which he received Illness Benefit.

March 2025: Deductions totalling €1,073.60 were made to account for January (three sick days) and February (19 sick leave days), leaving a remainder of €2,009.73.

April 2025: Deductions totalling €1,659.30 were made to account for March (20 sick days) and April (14 sick leave days), during which Illness Benefit was received, leaving a gross remainder of €536.25.

In total, the Complainant was on sick leave for 61 days.

It is accepted that the Complainant was advised at the January 2025 meeting that he would be paid 70% of his wages. This is accepted in the absence of any contradictory evidence from the Respondent and is supported by emails sent by the Complainant to the HR Manager, HR Generalist, and Line Manager on 15 and 16 April 2025. However, I do not accept that this understanding is entirely accurate.

The source of the dispute appears to be the delay in applying the deductions to the Complainant’s monthly salary, which resulted in significant deductions in March and, particularly, April 2025, without any prior warning from the Respondent. This understandably had an unexpected impact on the Complainant’s finances.

Having regard to the weekly Illness Benefit of €244, which the Respondent broke down into a daily sum of €48.80 (€244 / 5 days), and considering the Deductions Clause in the Contract of Employment and the Sick Pay Policy, which states that salary is paid net of social welfare (with no percentage specified), I find that there was no unlawful deduction by the Respondent.

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages