A builder who has claimed his former employer unlawfully docked his wages to pay for a laptop computer broken by spilled tea has accused a payroll administrator of falsely stating that he agreed to the deduction.
Disputed accounts of what was stated throughout a 90-second cellphone name final summer season emerged as the 2 former colleagues at Co Wexford-based BHA Building Ltd took turns cross-examining one another on the Office Relations Fee this afternoon.
The tribunal was listening to complaints below the Fee of Wages Act 1991 by web site supervisor Barry Cull, who has accused BHA of docking €620 from his remaining pay packet for the laptop computer after he stop.
He additionally claims the corporate didn’t pay him €750 in gross wages for his final three days on the job, when the corporate maintains he didn’t clock in.
Mr Cull, who has an deal with in Thurles, Co Tipperary, informed the tribunal he earned €2,500 a fortnight whereas working a 41.5-hour week as a web site supervisor for the corporate between February and July 2023, when he resigned – with a deduction made to his remaining pay packet on 14 July.
“Tea obtained spilled on the laptop computer, it obtained broken then. I used to be out of the workplace,” Mr Cull stated, including that the agency’s payroll administrator informed him it could price €620 to switch.
“She by no means stated I’d should pay. There was by no means any e-mail. The primary I seen of the €620 was when my payslip got here in,” he stated. [stet]
The payroll administrator, Marie Murphy, who appeared on behalf of the corporate, cross-examined Mr Cull and put it to him: “I informed you it was new, €620, and it could be deducted out of your wages.”
“No you didn’t, that’s false,” he replied.
“I did,” Ms Murphy stated.
“You didn’t,” Mr Cull stated.
“The day he rang me, I informed him how a lot the laptop computer was… he stated that was high-quality, deduct that from his wages,” Ms Murphy continued.
“I can definitively say that I didn’t say that,” Mr Cull stated.
After an additional alternate, adjudicator Christina Ryan stated: “Everybody must settle down. It’s clear there’s a dispute. If the events agreed on all the pieces we wouldn’t be right here.”
In direct proof, Ms Murphy said that Mr Cull informed her “he had spilled tea on the laptop computer” and agreed to the pay deduction.
“I stated it was firm property, a brand-new laptop computer, and that it’d have to get replaced,” she stated.
Requested by the adjudicator whether or not she ever put the main points of the alleged settlement in writing to Mr Cull previous to the pay deduction, she stated she had not.
On Mr Cull’s declare for non-payment of three days’ wages, Ms Murphy stated the agency’s timekeeping system solely recorded him clocking in on two days in his final week on the job.
The complainant stated he had labored his regular hours and used the corporate’s clock-in system as regular on July fifth, sixth and seventh final, however that it appeared to him it “didn’t register” at head workplace.
Mr Cull stated he informed Ms Murphy that two named colleagues, who weren’t current on the listening to, would “vouch” for him.
“She stated it’s labored off the clock-in system, she received’t be contacting [them],” Mr Cull added.
Ms Murphy’s place was that the system had recorded all different employees current on the positioning that week and that the corporate insurance policies required employees to contact head workplace if they didn’t achieve clocking in.
Mr Cull’s stated there had been no indication of any methods failure on the clock-in system on web site.
The adjudicator closed the listening to and is to subject her choice in writing to the events.
