employer deducting til shortages from wages

ellejay

Hi

If an employer writes into an employee contract that he can deduct til shortages from employees wages, can he do this? is this legal?

I was under the impression that it's not legal to a)include that in contract and b)deduct from wages.

Thanks for any help.
Lj.

leeroybrown

It's not an uncommon inclusion in retail contracts but there are certain restrictions on it. Take a look at pages 17-19 of this booklet.

ellejay

ok thanks for that.
i see it is possible, very surprised have to say.

ScouseMouse

If it is written into the contract of employment, then when you signed it, you agreed to the deductions !

Corruptedmorals

Should be illegal though! Till overs are just as common if not more so, I'm sure they wouldn't be added to your wages!

Common in small shops- particularly newsagents. Does not happen in supermarkets, large stores, chain stores etc. They give warnings instead.

Eoin

From this page:

Where your employer suffers loss through your fault, for example breakages or till shortages or your employer supplies a service as part of the job, for example, a uniform, deductions may be allowed but only where:

They are allowed for in your contract
They are fair and reasonable
You have received a written notice of the deduction - a full week's notice if the deduction arises from your mistake
The amount of the deduction does not exceed the loss or cost of the service
The deduction takes place within 6 months of the loss/cost occurring

Corruptedmorals wrote:

Till overs are just as common if not more so, I'm sure they wouldn't be added to your wages!

I've not worked in retail in a very long time, but surely a till being over also that means an error was made though; not that the staff member increased sales or anything like that.

leeroybrown

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

Should be illegal though! Till overs are just as common if not more so, I'm sure they wouldn't be added to your wages!

A smart retail employer should consider being over to be worse. An undercharge just means a customer feeling lucky if they notice. An overcharge might mean a pissed off customer who'll badmouth your business and mightn't come back.

Howjoe1

Interesting thread. I have a similar but slightly different case.

I work in a small retail unit. The staff all share the same till. An amount of €300 was short one evening. Not insignificant giving average purchases of €10.

Employer has announced that all employees (6) who work that day will be deducted an equal share of the €300.

This appears to be a clear case of "theft" by one employee. They have no security camera etc to pin point the culprit.

Surely, it is unfair that 5 innocent people can be deducted wages?

Contract allows for deductions were you are responsible for shortages, but surely you have the right as someone innocent of this not to be punished?

It hardly comes under:

"the amount of the deduction (or payment to the employer) from wages
must be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances
including the amount of the wages of the employee..."

Also, I fear if I challenge it with my employer it might be used against me.

Is it best to just share the punishment?

Jagle

while i cant answer your question about the 300euro being divided between ye.

Till overages are indeed worse the shortages, as it jsut means more often then not youve robbed the customer, a far worse thing then leaving a few customers off when they might not have the 5 or 10 cent or whatever causes the shortages

DubTony

leeroybrown wrote: »

A smart retail employer should consider being over to be worse. An undercharge just means a customer feeling lucky if they notice. An overcharge might mean a pissed off customer who'll badmouth your business and mightn't come back.

And don't ignore that a till being over can also mean that the employee didn't register goods sold, took the cash, but didn't have an opportunity to remove the "over" from the till.

Howjoe1 wrote: »

Interesting thread. I have a similar but slightly different case.

I work in a small retail unit. The staff all share the same till. An amount of €300 was short one evening. Not insignificant giving average purchases of €10.

Employer has announced that all employees (6) who work that day will be deducted an equal share of the €300.

This appears to be a clear case of "theft" by one employee. They have no security camera etc to pin point the culprit.

Surely, it is unfair that 5 innocent people can be deducted wages?

Contract allows for deductions were you are responsible for shortages, but surely you have the right as someone innocent of this not to be punished?

It hardly comes under:

"the amount of the deduction (or payment to the employer) from wages
must be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances
including the amount of the wages of the employee..."

Also, I fear if I challenge it with my employer it might be used against me.

Is it best to just share the punishment?

If he's this bad, he'll probably sack you - or at least find a reason to get rid of you. Where an employer can't identify who caused the problem, he shouldn't be making a deduction. You should all use separate tills, or at least have separate cash drawers, and cash up when you're finished using the till. He should also have security cameras covering the tills so he can identify who the thief / idiot is. He has a duty to his employees that he's not fulfilling.

gline

Jagle wrote: »

while i cant answer your question about the 300euro being divided between ye.

Till overages are indeed worse the shortages, as it jsut means more often then not youve robbed the customer, a far worse thing then leaving a few customers off when they might not have the 5 or 10 cent or whatever causes the shortages

Couldnt a till being over, possibly be a sale that was not recorded on the till but the money was put in the drawer?

Jagle

gline wrote: »

Couldnt a till being over, possibly be a sale that was not recorded on the till but the money was put in the drawer?

indeed it can, again another problem where stock levels are concerned. so still a till being up is worse then being down imo