Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dylan  Noonan

Irish Pride Fine Foods Unlimited

Representatives

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-00075461-001

16/09/2025

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation at the outset of the hearing. He relied upon documentary evidence in support of his complaint. The Complainant gave evidence that he was employed by the Respondent as a General Operator from 27 March 2022 until 8 August 2025 and that deductions totalling approximately €895 were made from his final wages.

The Respondent was represented by IBEC with MR Wayne Green, Group HR Manager, giving evidence on Affirmation. Submissions and documentary evidence were relied upon at the hearing.

The Complainant gave evidence that deductions totalling approximately €895 were made from his final wages. He understood these deductions to relate to alleged overpayments of annual leave and shift premium.

The Complainant stated that he had been informed during recruitment that he would receive a 10% probationary-related increase. When the contract subsequently presented to him did not reflect this arrangement, he raised the issue and was advised not to sign it. He maintained that he never signed a contract of employment and was never provided with an amended version during his employment.

The Complainant asserted that he was never advised that he had taken annual leave in excess of his entitlement, nor informed that any overpayment would be recovered from his wages. He maintained that responsibility for monitoring annual leave rested with the Respondent and that he was unaware of any contractual provision authorising the deductions.

He also disputed the deduction of shift premium payments, contending that these formed part of his earnings and should not have been withheld to offset any alleged liability. He stated that approximately €199 related to shift premium and approximately €695 related to basic pay.

The Complainant's evidence was that no prior notice or explanation of the deductions was provided and that they were made unilaterally and without his consent. He contended that the deductions were therefore unlawful under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and stated that the reduction in his final pay caused him financial hardship.

Cross Examination

Under cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that he continued working for the Respondent for approximately three and a half years after declining to sign the contract and that he accepted his wages and shift premium payments throughout that period. He maintained, however, that he never agreed to the contractual terms relied upon by the Respondent.

The Complainant was unable to confirm or dispute the Respondent's records that he had taken 18 days' annual leave before resigning. He argued that responsibility for monitoring annual leave rested with the Respondent and that his entitlement should have reflected the overtime hours he regularly worked.

He accepted receiving payslips throughout his employment and the 10% pay increase referred to during the hearing. However, he maintained that he had never signed a contract authorising deductions from his wages.

The Complainant's position remained that the deduction of 48 hours' annual leave from his final wages was unlawful because he neither consented to nor received prior notice of the deduction. He maintained that his complaint concerned the absence of notice and authorisation rather than whether he had taken the leave in question.

Mr. Green gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. He confirmed that the Complainant had been provided with a contract of employment at the commencement of his employment in March 2022. He stated that the contract contained the Respondent's standard terms and conditions which applied across the business and that there were no material changes to an operator's rate of pay other than those arising from shift arrangements.

In relation to annual leave, Mr. Green stated that the Complainant's full annual leave entitlement was 20 days per annum. He explained that entitlement was not increased by the performance of overtime and that overtime hours did not generate additional annual leave entitlement. He stated that the Respondent's records showed that the Complainant had taken 18 days' annual leave by the date of his resignation and had accrued only 12 days, resulting in an excess of six days (48 hours) annual leave having been taken.

Addressing the Complainant's complaint concerning the deduction of shift premium, Mr. Green explained that the 17% night-shift premium was payable only on specified earnings, including basic hours, overtime, annual leave and public holiday hours, but not on Sunday premium or attendance bonuses. He stated that the payroll calculation applied the shift premium consistently and that the method of applying the premium before or after the deduction for excess annual leave produced the same overall result. He maintained that the deduction had therefore been calculated correctly.

Mr. Green further explained that the deduction for excess annual leave was processed through the hourly payment section of the payslip because it was a pre-tax adjustment. He stated that processing the deduction in this manner ensured that the Complainant would not be taxed on monies representing annual leave that had not been accrued. He maintained that the figures appearing on the final payslip accurately reflected the Complainant's earnings and the recovery of excess annual leave taken.

Cross Examination

During cross-examination, the Complainant challenged Mr Green's evidence regarding contractual arrangements and wage deductions. He suggested that employees were employed on different contractual terms and did not all receive the same benefits. Mr Green accepted that different contracts existed within the business but maintained that they were largely identical, with only minor variations depending on operational requirements.

The Complainant further contended that some employees had received a 10% payment or benefit prior to reductions implemented in late 2020. Mr Green stated that he was unaware of the matter and did not understand the basis of the alleged 10% claim.

Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “Act”) prohibits deductions from an employee's wages unless the deduction is required or authorised by statute, authorised by a term of the employee's contract, or has been consented to in writing by the employee.

The Complainant contends that deductions were made from his final wages without his prior consent and without advance notification. The Respondent did not dispute the annual leave deductions where it related to annual leave taken in excess of the Complainant's accrued entitlement and were therefore properly recoverable.

The Respondent relied on contractual and handbook provisions to justify the deduction for annual leave taken in excess of accrued entitlement. However, while Mr Green stated that a revised handbook had been issued to all employees in 2024, no evidence was produced to establish that the Complainant had received or acknowledged it.

It is also noted the Complainant's evidence that he did not sign the contract relied upon by the Respondent and disputed that he had accepted its terms. The burden rests on the Respondent to establish that any contractual provision authorising the deduction formed part of the Complainant's terms and conditions of employment.

Significantly, Mr Green accepted that the Complainant was not notified in advance of the deduction, was not provided with a breakdown of the calculation, and was given no opportunity to discuss or challenge the amount. While the Respondent considered it necessary to recover the monies from the Complainant's final wages, that does not displace the requirements of the Act, which requires that deductions be properly authorised.

It is noted that Respondent’s letter of 24 August 2025 sets out the explanation for the deduction as relating to annual leave only. The Complainant’s payslip of 14 August 2025 provides for a deduction in the sum of €683.04 only. There is no evidence regarding the shift allowance.

Having regard to the evidence as a whole, the Respondent has not established that the deduction €683.04 was authorised in accordance with Section 5 (2) (iv) of the Act namely; “(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction”

Accordingly, I find that the deduction of €683.04 constituted an unlawful deduction from wages within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. On this basis I find the complaint is well founded.

Redress is provided for under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991:-

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

I find the complaint is well founded. Accordingly, I direct the Respondent to pay the employee compensation of the net amount of €683.04 being the amount of the established deduction as being reasonable in the circumstances.