employer taking money from pay to cover till shortage.

mlumley

My daughter has just informed me that her employer has taken money for shortages in her till. She was told that the last manager didn't stop money for shortages, so the new manager took 60e from her pay. She has also told me that it is now a regular thing.

Are employers allowed to do this, I thought it was illegal to do this, am I right?

If he is not allowed to do this, how can I stop it without getting her the sack?

She is only17 and wants to keep her job.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Doom

Does she have a work contract,? she is supposed to by law.
Does the contract mention anything about this?

The Big Red Button

mlumley wrote: »

My daughter has just informed me that her employer has taken money for shortages in her till. She was told that the last manager didn't stop money for shortages, so the new manager took 60e from her pay. She has also told me that it is now a regular thing.

Are employers allowed to do this, I thought it was illegal to do this, am I right?

If he is not allowed to do this, how can I stop it without getting her the sack?

She is only17 and wants to keep her job.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Is it only your daughter that uses her till, on any given day?

Is she happy that the float left in the till at the start of the day is correct, and is she the one who cashes up at the end of the day?

As in, did she give out €60 extra in change throughout the day? Or undercharge, somehow, by €60? Or where did that €60 go?

I'm not sure of the legalities involved, but having worked in several busy retail jobs, I just can't understand how €60 could just go missing from a till!

mlumley

chatterpillar wrote: »

mlumley wrote: »

My daughter has just informed me that her employer has taken money for shortages in her till. She was told that the last manager didn't stop money for shortages, so the new manager took 60e from her pay. She has also told me that it is now a regular thing.

Are employers allowed to do this, I thought it was illegal to do this, am I right?

If he is not allowed to do this, how can I stop it without getting her the sack?

She is only17 and wants to keep her job.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Is it only your daughter that uses her till, on any given day?

Is she happy that the float left in the till at the start of the day is correct, and is she the one who cashes up at the end of the day?

As in, did she give out €60 extra in change throughout the day? Or undercharge, somehow, by €60? Or where did that €60 go?

I'm not sure of the legalities involved, but having worked in several busy retail jobs, I just can't understand how €60 could just go missing from a till![/Quote




The 60e taken was to cover what the last manager didn't take out from previouse months.

No one said anything whilest he was there, then a new manager came and took it out.



Surely that can't be right, she also didn't get a recipt for the money taken.

SC Kevin

"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. In these cases a deduction (or payment by the employee) is only allowed where:

It is allowed for in your contract
It is 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
Failure to pay all or part of the wages due to an employee is considered an unlawful deduction and a complaint can be made under the Payment of Wages Act – see ‘How to apply’ below. Likewise, unpaid notice, holiday pay, bonus and commission payments can also form part of a claim under the Act."

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_slip.html

ResearchWill

From the payment of wages Act 1991 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0025/sec0005.html#sec5


(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term,

and

(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, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is ofan amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(3) (a) An employer shall not receive a payment from an employee in respect of a matter referred to in subsection (2) unless, if the payment were a deduction, it would comply with that subsection.

(b) Where an employer receives a payment in accordance with paragraph (a) he shall forthwith give a receipt for the payment to the employee.

As an aside if a till is up €60 do they give that to the employee.

fasttalkerchat

One myth is that it cannot be done if that would mean the employee is working for less than minimum wage.
Legally the employee can be asked for the money but I'm not sure if it can be taken from wages before they reach the employee.

Is this a corner shop or chain? The company rules may be more help than the law if its the latter.

ResearchWill

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

One myth is that it cannot be done if that would mean the employee is working for less than minimum wage.
Legally the employee can be asked for the money but I'm not sure if it can be taken from wages before they reach the employee.

Is this a corner shop or chain? The company rules may be more help than the law if its the latter.

The Act does say "(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and"

So an employee on 6 hours of work a week for €10 a hour, well a €60 deduction would not be reasonable. In relation to less than minimum wage I am not aware of any case law on that but any deduction from a person on minimum wage would be harder to show as reasonable.

As the Act refers to deduction from wages I would assume that is a deduction before the employee receives it.

The company rules will always be second to the law, if the rules do not conform to the Act then the company will be in trouble.

fasttalkerchat

ResearchWill wrote: »

The company rules will always be second to the law, if the rules do not conform to the Act then the company will be in trouble.

Of course, however they may give the employee more rights than their basic legal entitlement. In one particular company we were not allowed to ask or permit staff to cover till differences out of their own money.

ResearchWill

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Of course, however they may give the employee more rights than their basic legal entitlement. In one particular company we were not allowed to ask or permit staff to cover till differences out of their own money.

But if in this case the company rules said that, then as those rules would be interpreted as part of the contract of employment, if the company then tried to deduct money as such deductions are not allowed by the contract then the deduction would be in breach of the 1991 Act.

If an employee has a deduction made in breach of contract then the only option would be to sue for that deduction. Where the Act says if the contract does not allow it then the employer is in breach of the Act and an employee has a simple process to get their money back.

fasttalkerchat

ResearchWill wrote: »

But if in this case the company rules said that, then as those rules would be interpreted as part of the contract of employment, if the company then tried to deduct money as such deductions are not allowed by the contract then the deduction would be in breach of the 1991 Act.

If an employee has a deduction made in breach of contract then the only option would be to sue for that deduction. Where the Act says if the contract does not allow it then the employer is in breach of the Act and an employee has a simple process to get their money back.

That's true. If I was in that position I would look into whether that managers actions are in line with company policy. Telling the store manager (or line manager) may be all that is needed rather than going to court.

ResearchWill

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's true. If I was in that position I would look into whether that managers actions are in line with company policy. Telling the store manager (or line manager) may be all that is needed rather than going to court.

Just to clarify, I said if the 1991 Act was not there then in the example you gave the only option would be to either go to or say you are going to Court. Because of the 1991 Act this will not be necessary as the employee can show the company is in breach of the Act and a simple application can be made to fix the problem. So a simple chat with HR should fix the problem.

fasttalkerchat

ResearchWill wrote: »

Just to clarify, I said if the 1991 Act was not there then in the example you gave the only option would be to either go to or say you are going to Court. Because of the 1991 Act this will not be necessary as the employee can show the company is in breach of the Act and a simple application can be made to fix the problem. So a simple chat with HR should fix the problem.

Sorry, I understand you now. Agreed on the chat with HR (or similar) point.

jblack

Doom wrote: »

Does she have a work contract,? she is supposed to by law.

Incorrect. There is no statutory obligation for an employer to have a contract with an employee.

fasttalkerchat

jblack wrote: »

Incorrect. There is no statutory obligation for an employer to have a contract with an employee.

All employees have an employment contract with their employer, although it might not be in writing. If you don’t have a written employment contract, your contract would have automatically been created when you started to work for your employer.

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

Incorrect. There is no statutory obligation for an employer to have a contract with an employee.

Every employment relationship is a contract, maybe not written but it is never the less a contract. There is a requirement to have the terms of the employment reduced to writing as per the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 as amended, below is the original section 3

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0005/sec0003.html#sec3

jblack

Again, there is no obligation on an employer to have a contract with an employee.

Often arises in employment disputes, there are certain terms implied from a relationship of employer and employee, but the only requirement is minimum terms to be set out in writing.

You might note that the only way an employer can legally set-off/abate money is where a contractual term permits this.

jblack

I realise my wording isn't great - there is no obligation on the employer to have a contract with the employee, one will arise by nature of the relationship in the absence of agreement.

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

Again, there is no obligation on an employer to have a contract with an employee.

Often arises in employment disputes, there are certain terms implied from a relationship of employer and employee, but the only requirement is minimum terms to be set out in writing.

You might note that the only way an employer can legally set-off/abate money is where a contractual term permits this.

Again all relationships betwen an employee and and employeer are contracts, they may not have sat down and worked out the details but there is very much a contract there. I agree to work for you from 9 to 5 monday to friday for €9 an hour that is a contract. If any issue arrises then we may have to get a court to decide the terms of the contract looking at what is normal in the industry etc. but there is a contract in existence.

There is a difference betwen a contract and a written contract but contracts are entered into every day with out being written down.

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

I realise my wording isn't great - there is no obligation on the employer to have a contract with the employee, one will arise by nature of the relationship in the absence of agreement.

I believe what you are saying is there is no need to have a written contract and yes you are correct. The only legal requirement is that certain minimum terms are given to the employee within a certain time. But all such relationships do have a contract just one that is not written down.

jblack

ResearchWill wrote: »

I believe what you are saying is there is no need to have a written contract and yes you are correct. The only legal requirement is that certain minimum terms are given to the employee within a certain time. But all such relationships do have a contract just one that is not written down.

I am saying that there is no obligation on the employer to have, whether written or oral or any other form, a contract with an employee. There is no provision in statute stating that all employers must furnish an employee with a contract (in whatever form), or indeed have one. What I did not say was that unless the the employer and employee have an agreement, there is no contract.

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

I am saying that there is no obligation on the employer to have, whether written or oral or any other form, a contract with an employee. There is no provision in statute stating that all employers must furnish an employee with a contract (in whatever form), or indeed have one. What I did not say was that unless the the employer and employee have an agreement, there is no contract.

The very fact that one person does work for another and gets a payment is a contract, noone may have ever thought that but it is. If something goes wrong you sue in contract law, you interpet the relationship under the rules of contract. You walk into a shop and buy a packet of tayto you have just engaged in a contract.

While there is no obligation a contract sprang into existence as soon as the relationship began.

Also contained in the 1994 act is the following "(e) the date of commencement of the employee's contract of employment," and "(f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,"

You are correct there is no obligation to agree any terms of a contract, but a contract does exist and the courts will imply the terms if necessary.

jblack

I'll make this as simple as I can -

There is no obligation on an employer to have (in whatever form) a contract with an employee, one will arise automatically by virtue of the nature of the relationship in the absence of an agreement.

There is an obligation for an employer to set out certain minimum terms under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

Perhaps the confusion is out of my use of the word "have". I meant have in the sense of having an agreement, rather than have in the sense that one actually exists.

jblack

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are correct there is no obligation to agree any terms of a contract, but a contract does exist and the courts will imply the terms if necessary.

That's what I meant to convey - it was open to differing interpretation, apologies.