Blog Layout

TWSS – Employer Liability for Payment Shortfall


TWSS – Employer Liability for Payment Shortfall

Introduction


The Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS) operated to enable employers who were negatively impacted by the Covid 19 pandemic to give significant supports directly to their employees. However, the Workplace Relations Commission recently found that there was an obligation on an employer to make good any shortfall that resulted in an employee being paid less than they usually would be paid. 


Purpose of the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme


The TWSS operated from 26 March 2020 until 31 August 2020. The purpose of the TWSS was to enable employers who were negatively impacted by the Covid 19 pandemic to give significant supports directly to their employees and keep their employees on the payroll throughout the requisite period.


Shortfall in Payment under TWSS

 

However, a number of employees experienced a shortfall in payment due to the operation of the TWSS.

 

A question that has been asked is who is responsible for that shortfall?

 

In Mark Reeves -v- Lake Region Medical Limited (ADJ00030224), the employee raised a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

 

Mr Reeves commenced employment with the company in February 2020 and was employed on a full time basis as a manufacturing operative. Following the introduction of the Covid 19 restrictions and the accompanying measures by the government, the company availed of the TWSS. The complaint raised before the WRC was one in relation to the calculation of the complainant’s average wage under that scheme. Mr Reeves alleged that a 2 week absence in February, because of illness, resulted in a payment under that scheme that was significantly less than his normal fortnightly wage.

 

TWSS and the Payment of Wages Act


The complaint submitted was to the effect that the respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in that the respondent company paid the complainant less than the amount due to him.


Section 5(1) of the Act states:


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 virtue of any statute or instrument made under statute,


(b)  the deduction (or payment) is required or is authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment including 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) of the Act states:


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 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 deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,


then, except as 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 by the employer from the wages of the employee.


The position of the respondent was that any shortfall in payment in this particular instance is covered by the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Act as detailed above.


Payment of Wages and Operation of TWSS


Whilst the operation of the TWSS might have resulted in a shortfall of wages during the operation of that particular scheme, the obligation to pay an employee what that employee is contractually entitled to remains.


The provisions of Part 7 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act, 2020, are in relation to the operation of the wage subsidy scheme and were designed to provide assistance to an employer to maintain employees in employment even though they were suffering a reduction in turnover. The guidelines published by the Revenue Commissioners set out the parameters of the scheme and the details of its implementation.


The Adjudication Officer, in this instance, accepted that in order to avail fully of the scheme and be eligible for receipt of the subsidy the respondent company had to apply those rules.


Section 1.6 of the Operational TWSS FAQ states:


“If the employer makes excessive additional gross payments, then either the subsidy value applicable to the employee and refundable to the employer will be reduced, or the employee may not be eligible for the subsidy scheme.”


Conflict with the Payment of Wages Act


The object of these rules is to ensure that the employer is eligible to receive the subsidy payment.


The Workplace Relations Commission did not, however, see anything in the provisions of the legislation setting up the scheme that authorises or requires a deduction to be made from the wages paid to an employee.


There is accordingly an onus on the employer to make good any shortfall in wages that occurs as a result of the operation of the TWSS.


The Workplace Relations Commission did not accept that the deduction from the complainant’s wages that occurred in the case before me was allowable under Section 5(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.


The Adjudication Officer therefore found this complaint to be well founded and ordered the respondent company to the complainant the sum of €439.63.


Further Information


For further information, please contact the author of this article, Barry Crushell.


Share

Compensation for workplace stress & anxiety
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
Psychological damage is difficult to measure and quantify, making it difficult for assessors to determine its impact. The Personal Injuries Guidelines were established by the Judicial Council in 2021 under the Judicial Council Act 2019 to identify appropriate levels of damages for different forms of personal injuries. The guidelines aim to enhance understanding of the evaluation and allocation of compensation for personal injuries to achieve more uniformity in awards.
How much compensation for stress at work?
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
In this article, we examine the circumstances that give rise to a personal injuries claim for the stress and anxiety caused by a toxic working environment.
13 Feb, 2024
The case of Electricity Supply Board -v- Kieran Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 examines whether an employee has a right to silence in the context of workplace investigations. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) (the Plaintiff) brought a case against Mr Sharkey (the Defendant) alleging that his failure to answer certain questions, in the context of a workplace investigations that was also subject to parallel criminal proceedings, amounted to a repudiation of his contract of employment or, in the alternative, that the ESB was entitled to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated by him.
Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999
26 Jan, 2024
The Form 3 is used when an individual wants to make a representation to the Minister for Justice and Equality pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999. It is an appeal to a decision of the Minister for Justice in respect of an immigration application.
Determining an Employer
03 Jan, 2024
The case of Amanda Craddock v Head–Hunt International Limited (ADJ00036831) examines the circumstances under which a redundancy payment would ordinarily be payable to an agency worker.
Claims before the WRC
18 Dec, 2023
In this article, we consider what will be considered frivolous or vexatious, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), when a complaint is presented to them we do so by examining several claims initiated by Mr. Leon O’Connor against various companies.
Show More
Share by: