Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Livia  Cavalieri

Portmarnock Coffee Company Ltd

Representatives

In person

Edward Porter

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-00072798-001

25/06/2025

The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 25th June 2025 relating to breaches of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Specifically, the issue relates to a €1 per hour increase that was paid to the complainant for three weeks on 15th December 2024, 22nd December 2024 and 29th December 2024. The additional payments were identified as clerical errors and were recouped from the complainant in line with the terms of the contract of employment. The complainant alleges that reducing the hourly rate by €1 per hour in January 2025 was an illegal deduction in contravention of the legislation.

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a chef and was paid €15 per hour. For three weeks in December 2024, the complainant’s wages were increased to €16 per hour. The complainant, who represented herself at adjudication, stated that she thought the increase was paid to her as an acknowledgement of her hard work in the employment and she was very happy to receive the increase.

The complainant stated that the hourly rate of pay was reduced to €15 per hour with effect from 5th January 2025. The complainant also stated that annual leave and public holiday entitlements were paid to her at the lower rate and should have been paid to her at the higher rate of €16 per hour. The complainant is seeking that she be repaid the €1 per hour for the three weeks in question and have the annual leave and public holiday entitlements adjusted to reflect the increase in pay.

The respondent’s position is that the increase in pay was a clerical error and should not have been paid to the complainant. The respondent stated that all annual leave and public holiday entitlements were discharged to the complainant at the correct rate of pay (€15 per hour). The respondent further stated that the overpayment was recouped in line with the terms of the complainant’s contract of employment.

I note the position of both parties in relation to this complaint. I also note that the complainant has not made a complaint to the WRC in respect of annual leave and public holiday entitlements and accepts that all entitlements were paid to her albeit at the lower rate of pay provided for in her contract of employment.

For this complaint to succeed, the higher rate of pay (€16 per hour) must be properly payable to the complainant in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. If it is properly payable, the reduction in her earnings to €15 per hour constitutes an illegal deduction in contravention of the legislation. If it is not properly payable the legislation has not been breached and the complaint cannot succeed.

The Applicable Law

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides as follows:

(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.

Conclusion

Having considered the matter, I note that the complainant’s contract of employment provides for a rate of pay of €15 per hour. I also note that any overpayments can be recouped in line with the contract of employment. Having heard from both parties, I find that the additional €1 per hour was paid to the complainant because of a clerical error and was recouped. Accordingly, I find that the additional payment was not properly payable to the complainant and therefore the respondent has not breached the legislation as claimed.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Wages properly payable