ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002911

Complaint for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00004027-001	22/04/2016

Venue: WRC, Tom Johnson House, Haddington Rd Dublin 4.

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/07/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background

The Complainant was employed as an English Teacher from 24th February 2016 to 9^th March 2016. He was paid €21.50 per hour. He has claimed that the Respondent owes him wages and that they have breached Sec 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

I was briefly employed by this language school from February-March 2016 as an English teacher, working on the school's 'Cultural Experience' programmes. As is often (unfortunately but apparently legally) the case in the field of EFL, I did not receive a full contract of employment from the school. However, the agreed hours of work were clearly laid out by the Respondent in an extensive email correspondence, following a face-to face interview. The payable teaching rate of 21.50 Euros/hour was also clearly stated at this time. In effect, therefore, I was entitled to regard both the agreed hours and pay rate as contractually binding. I therefore allocated this time in advance, and turned down and/or moved other paying work accordingly on my freelance schedule. The working experience with this employer was extremely unsatisfactory, upsetting, and manipulative and, I feel, abusive at many levels. However, the main substance of my complaint concerns (i) the Respondent cancelling (with just a few days' notice) the last part of my agreed hours with the final incoming group (amounting to 12.75 hours) on the supposed basis of adverse feedback from the client concerning my allegedly poor performance (following a 'hearsay' feedback process I had not agreed with the school, and the content of which I, as a professional teacher with excellent testimonials over 20+ years, emphatically did not recognise or agree with); and (ii) the School making an unauthorised reduction in the agreed pay rate on a portion of the hours worked (i.e. 3.5 hours reduced from the agreed 21.50 hourly rate to 13.00 to reflect a lower 'Activity Rate'), of which no mention had been made in the electronic contract at any stage, nor at the training morning (as falsely claimed by the Respondent). As a result of these two significant changes to my working schedule and salary, I calculate that I was underpaid in the sum of €303.88 by this school. Moreover, owing to their manipulation of my agreed allocated hours, I also suffered loss of earnings as a result of work I might have carried out otherwise. Finally, I also assert that my professional reputation was badly besmirched in the process through an unagreed, unprofessional and deeply suspicious client feedback process. NB Please note that copies of the relevant emails will be forwarded as invited to the Commission by post.

He denied that the reduced rate of pay was advised either orally or in writing. He rejects the alleged feedback received from the students that led to the withdrawal of the hours.

In summary he has claimed as follows

1) 3.25 hours paid at €13.00 instead of 21.50 amounting to loss of €8.50 X 3.25 = €27.63.

2) Loss of 12.75 hours of work @ €21.50 amounting to €274.13

The total amount claimed is €301.76.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

1) Reduced rate

They stated that he attended a training day and it was explained that pre teaching work and social activity was paid at €13.00 per hour and teaching was paid at €21.50 per hour. They accept that he was told verbally but not in writing. Other teachers invoiced the College for the €13.00 rate so it was well known that this was the rate for non-teaching work. The complaint is rejected.

2) Teaching Project cancelled

They stated that the Student Leader had complained about the Complainant’s work. It was unprepared and unchallenging. The Group did not want him to continue to teach them. They removed him from that project and they had no option but to do so. They phoned him and sent an e-mail to explain. They offered him alternative hours of work but he declined and left the employment. This complaint is rejected.

Findings

1) Reduced Rate

I note the conflict of evidence in this matter.

I note that this alleged arrangement was not confirmed in writing.

I note that no witnesses were available to corroborate the Respondent’s statement.

I note the Complainant’s evidence of an e-mail from the Respondent confirming the teaching rate of €21.50 with no reference to the non-teaching rate.

Therefore I find that he is entitled to be paid the rate of €21.50 per hour for all hours worked.

I find that he is owed 3.25 hours by €8.50 difference = €27.63.

2) Teaching Project cancelled

I note that he was contracted to this project and the Respondent removed him from it resulting in a loss of 12.75 hours of work.

I note that he was not given any opportunity correct any alleged shortcomings in his performance.

I note that the offer of alternative work was not particularised at the hearing.

I find it not possible to adjudicate whether it was an offer of suitable alternative employment.

I find that he is entitled to be paid for his contracted hours of work.

I find that he is owed 12.75 @ €21.50 per hour = €274.13. The total amount due is €301.76.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act and under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

As per Sec 6 (2) I have decided that the complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €301.76 within six weeks of the date below.

Dated: 16 August 2016