EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Fahad Nisar
- appellant
PW226/2013
against the decision of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Supermacs Ireland Limited
- respondent
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. Wallace
Members: Mr T. Gill
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this appeal at Limerick on 24th October 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s) : Mr Ger Kennedy, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondent(s) : Mr John Brennan, IBEC, Ross House, Victoria Place, Galway
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by the employee (appellant) against the decision of the Rights Commissioner ref: (r-PW122148/12/MR) under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Case
The Tribunal heard evidence that the appellant was employed by the respondent company from 26 September 2010. It was submitted for the appellant that his hours of work were reduced following the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on him in early 2012 for absenteeism due to illness and use of a mobile phone in the workplace. This reduction in hours was done without the appellant’s consent and the consequences of the reduction in hours led to a corresponding reduction in the appellant’s pay.
It was submitted by the appellant’s representative that the actions of the respondent were in contravention of section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act.
The appellant continued working reduced hours for a nine months period until the termination of his employment. It was accepted that he was paid for all hours worked but it was submitted that that he had an entitlement to the hours of work that he enjoyed prior to the reduction in his hours in January 2012 and a corresponding payment for these hours.
The respondent’s representative submitted that the appellant was paid for all hours worked. He was employed under a contract of employment where his hours of work were flexible and his hours of work varied from week to week. It was accepted that there was a reduction in the appellant’s hours in January 2012 but this was a result of a downturn in business and the company had an entitlement as per his contract to reduce his hours of work in line with the requirements of the business. A copy of the appellant’s contract of employment was opened to the Tribunal.
Determination
The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was paid for all hours worked and does not accept that the respondent breached section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act. The Tribunal finds that as the appellant was on reduced working hours he consequently suffered a reduction in wages and not a deduction in wages. In those circumstances the Tribunal dismisses the appeal and upholds the decision of the Rights Commissioner.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)