A financial services firm has been ordered to pay its former compliance chief €13,333 — his salary for a month — after finding the sum was docked “unlawfully” from his pay last year.
The employee said the money had never been forthcoming despite his “repeated requests” before the conclusion of his employment earlier this year.
Billie Stevens was awarded the sum by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on foot of a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1997 against AAO IE Services Limited.
He told the WRC that he accepted a job offer as head of compliance and money-laundering reporting officer at AAO IE Services Limited on an annual salary of €160,000 and started on July 18th, 2023.
Yes, the US has higher income per capita than Europe, but what is the real measure of a wealthy nation?
Your work questions answered: Can bonuses be deducted pro-rata during a maternity leave?
China the key for tech’s raw materials whether Trump likes it or not
Belfast-based watchmaker Nomadic moves with the times to reinvent retail experience
His case was that he was paid what he was owed for his work that July but got no salary the following month.
“Despite repeated requests the sum of €13,333 gross remains outstanding,” Mr Stevens told the tribunal. He remained at the firm until August 2024, the tribunal heard, with the Payment of Wages Act complaints being lodged in November 2023.
The company’s chief executive, Danny Brewster, appeared at a hearing on August 9th this year. He accepted that money was owed to Mr Stevens but “could not state the amount”, adjudicator Christina Ryan noted.
Mr Brewster had contended that Mr Stevens named the wrong legal entity in his complaint to the tribunal and had never been employed by AAO IE Services Ltd.
The adjudicator directed Mr Brewster to file submissions in writing in advance of a reconvened hearing on September 13th. The tribunal noted that Mr Stevens’s employment with the company ended on August 31st, 2024, just short of a fortnight before the second scheduled hearing.
Ms Ryan recorded there was no appearance “by or on behalf of the respondent” at the second hearing, nor any legal submissions.
She wrote in her decision that she was “satisfied as to the veracity of the employment relationship and find that the complainant has named the correct respondent”.
Mr Stevens was a “credible witness” who had supported his claim for the August 2023 salary payment with documentation, she added.
“I find that the respondent deducted this amount unlawfully and that the complainant is entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to one months’ salary,” she wrote, awarding Mr Stevens a gross payment of €13,333 in back pay.
- Sign up for the Business Today newsletter and get the latest business news and commentary in your inbox every weekday morning
- Opt in to Business push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our Inside Business podcast is published weekly – Find the latest episode here
