EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
PW225/2015
PW226/2015
PW227/2015
PW228/2015
APPEAL(S) OF:
Anne McLoughlin
and
Laura Murphy
and
John Tobin
and
Thomas McLoughlin
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Greystones Home Help Services Limited
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey BL
Members: Ms. J. Winters
Mr. J. Maher
heard this appeal in Dublin on 26 May 2016
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
Mr John Hubbard, SIPTU, Health Division, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondent(s):
No legal representation at the Tribunal hearing
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case came to the Tribunal as an employee appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, against Rights Commissioner Determination r-136187-136190-pw-13/MMG.
At the start of the Tribunal hearing the appellants’ representative said that Section 5 of the Act had been breached. There had only been nine days’ notice of the pay diminution at issue in this case. Eleven people had allegedly referred claims.to the Rights Commissioner. Only four turned up. Some ninety people had their pay reduced. The four had brought their case saying that there had been an unlawful deduction. Reference was made to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. There had been no consent from the four. They continued to work for the respondent.
KOC (director of the respondent) said that all of the respondent’s funding came from HSE. The respondent got into financial trouble and cut all remuneration by ten per cent.
The respondent was asked if it had taken cognisance of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Tribunal was answered in the affirmative and was told that there is law on this. The appellants’ representative said that in July/August 2012 a Rights Commissioner (MH) had decided this in the employees’ favour. The appellants’ representative referred to his booklet which quantified the money sought for these employees. There were no contracts at that time. It was submitted that they had not been properly informed.
Asked if the employees had been more put out about the notice or the money, the appellants’ representative replied that the respondent had been ruthless and that no discussion had taken place. The government had brought in legislation not just the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Four people had brought a challenge.
The respondent’s position was that ninety-five per cent of its funding was wages. It had incurred losses. All received was paid out. The board had no further choice.
When the Tribunal asked if there had been redundancies it was told that there had been administrative changes. The employment of an organiser and assistant organiser had ended.
When the Tribunal asked if all had taken a ten per cent cut it was told that two people had taken a fifteen per cent cut.
The appellants’ representative stated that most employees were only on five or six hours.
The respondent confirmed that staff were paid by the hour saying this was very flexible.
The Tribunal said that the Act was either infringed or not.
The appellants’ representative stated that inability to pay had never been claimed.
The respondent stated that it had done its best and felt that it had behaved responsibly. It did not disagree when it was put to the respondent that not all on the respondent side appeared to have read the Act.
The appellants’ representative summed up by saying that he had got his point across that the Act had been breached.
Determination:
This case came to the Tribunal as an employee appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, against Rights Commissioner Determination r-136187-136190-pw-13/MMG.
The Tribunal does not disagree with Rights Commissioner Determination r-136187-136190-pw-13/MMG but, rather, upholds its reasoning with regard to the circumstances of this particular instance where the acceptance of a pay reduction (as opposed to a deduction) by the overwhelming majority of the employees prevented employments being placed in jeopardy.
The appeal against Rights Commissioner Determination r-136187-136190-pw-13/MMG fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)