Despite finding his claim to be well-founded, the adjudication officer also criticised the man for failing to activate the company’s grievance procedure earlier and for directing “veiled threats” at his employer, a global leasing and finance business.

While working for the company on a second consecutive fixed-term contract, the man, who is now a trainee solicitor with a law firm, was allowed to avail of its education assistance programme – typically available only to permanent employees – on an exceptional basis.

The man received €775 to cover the cost of Law Society exams and preparatory courses, which the company sought to recoup when he left less than a year later at the conclusion of his contract. He was not informed of the deduction until his last day.

The company’s education policy set out that employees would be “required to refund all financial assistance to the company” in the event of a resignation, as well as other circumstances such as failing to complete the course, failing the exams or having their employment terminated.

The paralegal submitted to the WRC that he had been allowed to access the education scheme on the unique basis of his “loyal commitment to the company during the Covid-19 pandemic” and that the expiry of his fixed-term contract did not constitute a resignation.

In a recently-published determination which was handed down last month, the WRC agreed that the paralegal’s access to the scheme appeared to be “based on goodwill and was in essence an anomaly”. The company seemed to be “keen to support the complainant in his progression to become a solicitor, which was laudable”.

The adjudication officer noted that the complainant “was ineligible for that scheme and his application was processed outside the official time frame without a visible presence of CEO approval”. No records of the approval or the reasoning were submitted to the WRC by either party.

There was a “lack of a transparent foundation to the whole application and approval process of the education assistance provided to the complainant”, the adjudication officer said.

The fact that the approval to release the education assistance to the complainant was “incomplete and not covered by a bona fides agreement” placed the payment into “the realm of a grey area for the complainant as a fixed-term worker at the company”, the adjudication officer noted.

However, the €775 payment was still subject to the Payment of Wages Act 1991, which “prohibits deductions from wages outside of very particular circumstances”. The adjudication officer said the deduction was “a unilateral action and as such amounts to a plain contravention of section 5(2) the Act”.

The respondent was ordered to pay €500 in reasonable compensation of the contravention of section 5 of the 1991 Act.