PWD2618

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00056344 (CA-00067858-002)

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.

DECISION:

Background

This is an appeal by SCS Haulage Dublin Ltdof a Decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) in relation to a complaint made by a former employee, Derek Clarke.

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was well founded and ordered SCS Haulage Dublin Ltd to pay the sum of €1,012 as compensation, which was equivalent to 10 days pay.

This case is linked to another complaint PWD2617, which were heard by the Court on the same day. At the hearing, the Court heard submissions from both parties. The Court heard sworn witness testimony from Derek Clarke and from Terry Holmes on behalf of the company.

In this Decision the parties are referred to as they were at first instance. Hence, Derek Clarke is referred to as “the Complainant” and SCS Haulage Dublin Ltdas “the Respondent”.  

Summary of the Complainant’s position

The Complainant worked as a delivery driver with the company.  He resigned his position on Wednesday 12 June 2024. He contends that he was not paid all of his annual leave when he left the employment. 

The Complainant believes that he was left short by “at least a couple of days pay”.

Summary of the Respondent’s position

The Complainant resigned on 12 June 2024.  He contacted the company after receiving his final wages on 21 June 2024, to say that he was not paid for two days leave. Having reviewed the Complainant’s holiday entitlement, the Respondent realised that the Complainant had accrued five days outstanding leave.  Payment for the outstanding five days leave was processed through payroll as a supplementary payment on 28 June 2024. The payslip did not specify that the payment was made in lieu of annual leave.

The Complainant was paid for all outstanding leave entitlements.  No unlawful deduction occurred. The Respondent failed to send this information to the Adjudication Officer as was agreed at the WRC hearing.

The Applicable Law

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides as follows:

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.

…

(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.

Deliberations

This case is linked to another complaint PWD2617, which were heard by the Court on the same day.

The Complainant contends that he was not paid all of his outstanding annual leave entitlement when he left the employment. 

The Complainant did not dispute that he received a supplementary payment on 28 June 2024, which equated to five days’ pay. The Complainant acknowledged the clarification provided by Mr Holmes in his evidence about the processing of an additional payment in lieu of his outstanding annual leave entitlement on 28 June 2024. The Complainant said that it would have been helpful if the company had replied to his queries about his final wages after he left the employment. It is unfortunate for all concerned that this clarification was not provided to the Complainant before he progressed his complaint under the Act.

In light of the undisputed evidence tendered, the Court finds that there is no basis to the complaint that the Complainant suffered an unlawful deduction from his wages in relation to the non-payment of accrued annual leave. 

Decision

The Court finds that the complaint is not well founded. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside. The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AM	______________________
06/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.