FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 27(1), NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT, 2000 PARTIES : CARRABINE JOINERY LIMITED - AND - GUNDARS BALODIS (REPRESENTED BY CITIZENS INFORMATION CENTRE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Decision R-052493-mn-07
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by the Company from 8th December, 2005 until 1st December, 2006. His claim is that he was not paid the National Minimum Wage which at the time of his employment was €7.65 per hour. The fact that he was paid €6.50 per hour for 2,098 hours over 50 weeks is not disputed by his Employer who claims that he has done no wrong by the Claimant. A Rights Commissioner hearing took place on the 6th February, 2008, the Employer did not attend and was not represented.
The Rights Commissioners Decision is as follows:
"I declare the Claimant's case is well founded. I order the Employer to pay the Claimant the sum of €2,412.00 subject to statutory deductions."
The Employer appealed the Decision to the Labour Court on the 17th April, 2008, in accordance with Section 27(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd July, 2008 in Westport.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. 1. The Claimant is an experienced adult Worker from Latvia with undisputed evidence of his work record with the Company showing that he was paid less than the National Minimum Wage which at the time of his employment was
€7.65 per hour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The Worker at that time had very little English language skills and tended to make mistakes, even after training, while using the computer which cost the Company a substantial amount of money.
2. When he left the Company production increased by at least a third, he was not considered to be worth the minimum wage and was free to leave at any time.
DETERMINATION:
The material facts of this case are not in dispute. The Claimant worked for the Respondent 8th December 2005 until 1st December 2006. Throughout that period the Claimant was paid at a rate of €6.50 per hour. During the relevant period the national minimum wage was €7.65 per week. The Claimant is an adult worker with 11 years experience in the workforce in Latvia.
The Claimant sought a statement from the Respondent, pursuant to Section 24 of the Act, on 15th March 2007. The Respondent failed to provide the statement. The Claimant then made his claim under the Act.
On the uncontradicted evidence before the Court it is clear that the Claimant was not paid the minimum rate to which he was entitled under the Act. The Rights Commissioner measured the arrears due to him at €2,412 and made an award in the Claimant’s favour in that amount. This took account of the number of hours worked by the Claimant (2098) over a 50 week period. No issue was taken with this calculation.
The Respondent told the Court that having regard to the Claimant’s work rate and output he felt that the rate which he received was fair and reasonable. This line of argument cannot provide a defence under the Act.
Having regard to the evidence the Court is satisfied that the Decision of the Rights Commissioner is correct and ought to be upheld. It is the determination of the Court that the Respondent pay to the Claimant the sum of €2,412, being arrears of wages due to him under the Act.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th August, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.