Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martin  Kenny

Ata Group Ata Group

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-00071400-001

07/05/2025

The complainant submits that he was employed by the respondent from 5th February 2015 to 8th of November 2024. The within complaint was submitted on 7th of May 2025 under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.   The complainant’s employment ended on 8th of November 2024, therefore the cognizable people period of the complaint dates from eighth of November 2024 to 7th of May 2025.

The complainant submits that he was employed by the respondent from 5th February 2015 to 8th of November 2024

He submits that in October 2023 he became aware that the national minimum wage was due to increase to €12.70 from the 1st of January 24 and so he made enquiries with the person responsible for wages.

The complainant submits that the respondents reply was that as he was already earning more than the minimum wage the respondent would not have to pay him any extra from 1 January 2024.

 In October 2024 the complainant made further enquiries about this and was advised that once his wages were over the minimum wage the respondent had met its requirements.

The complainant also submits that he had carried out a small amount of overtime and asked whether he had received the right rate for this.

The within claim was submitted on 7th of May 2025.

The complainant’s employment ended on 8th of November 2024, therefore the cognizable people period of the complaint dates from eighth of November 2024 to 7th of May 2025.

The complainant submits that he is owed €550 in respect of unpaid wages due to a failure by the respondent to increase his hourly rate in accordance with increase in the minimum wage.

The respondent submits that the complainant was employed as a full-time General Operative from 5 February 2015, and his last working day was 8 November 2024.

The respondent submits that the complainant believes that as the National Minimum Wage increased to €12.70 from 1 January 2024, he was due 15% on top of this sum to take account of his 15% shift allowance which would add up to €14.60 per hour.

The complainant has submitted that as he was paid €14.30 per hour, there was an unlawful deduction of 30 cents per hour and that he is owed €550.00 based on an approximate sum of €12 euro per week over 45 weeks.

The respondent submits that the National Minimum Wage at the time of the Complainant’s employment was €12.70 per hour and the Complainant was paid €13.95 per hour for the period from January to June 2024 and €14.30 per hour from July 2024 until he left service in November 2024.

The respondent position is that these sums exceed the National Minimum Wage of €12.70 per hour

The respondent submits that it had no statutory or contractual obligation to pay the statutory minimum wage plus 15% shift premium and that the shift premium is a reckonable component of the national minimum wage

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—

 …

(3) …

(4) …

(5) Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee, or any payment received from an employee by an employer, where—

(i) the purpose of the deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of—

(I) any overpayment of wages, or

(II) any overpayment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

made (for any reason) by the employer to the employee, and

(ii) the amount of the deduction or payment does not exceed the amount of the overpayment

(b) … (g)

(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 complainant submits that he is owed wages of €550 which he states is the difference between what he was paid and what he should have been paid.  The complainant stated that he was paid an hourly rate of €14.30 but stated that he should have earned €14.60 per hour due to the increase in the minimum wage.   The complainant submits that his hourly rate also includes a shift allowance of 15%  

The respondent advised the hearing that this shift allowance is incorporated in the hourly rate as per the contract of employment which was submitted in evidence.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant’s hourly rate of pay had included the shift allowance of 15% as set out in the complainant’s contract.   This was produced in evidence.  The complainant stated that his understanding was that he should get the hourly minimum wage plus the 15% shift allowance on top of that.  The respondent advised that the shift allowance is included in the calculation of the hourly rate.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant was originally contracted to work on the shift pattern of 7am to 3pm one week and then 3pm to 11pm the following week.   The respondent stated that the complainant had requested and was granted a change in his working hours in 2018.

The respondent stated that the complainants rate of pay remained the same.

The complainant agreed that this was the case and that he had requested this move.  The respondent advised the hearing that this shift did not attract a shift allowance, but the respondent did not reduce the complainant hourly rate when he moved shifts even though he no longer worked the hours which attracted a shift allowance.   

The respondent advised the hearing that as the total average hourly remuneration received by the complainant (inclusive of shift premium) remained above the National Minimum Wage for the tenure of his employment, the respondent has been compliant with its statutory obligations, and the Complainant’s claim must fail.

The complainant also alluded to other monies he submits are owed for a discrepancy in wage payments and overtime which are included in his complaint stating: “I also done a small amount of overtime, so I like to know did I receive the right rate for this”.

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant received payment for all overtime at the contractual rate of pay for overtime, i.e., time and a half for weekdays and Saturday and double time for Sunday.   The complainant at the hearing did not provide evidence of any overtime carried out within the cognizable period and for which he was not paid.

Having carefully considered the submissions and evidence presented I am satisfied that there was no illegal deduction made from the complainant’s wages.   Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

I declare this claim to be not well founded.