ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001346
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00001848-001 | 11/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/08/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Attendance at Hearing:
By | Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | An Employee | A Takeaway |
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
I am paid an hourly rate plus a set fee for each delivery. Company wants to deduct €0.50 per hour from my delivery fees which they will show as reckonable pay. On paper I would be paid €9.15 per hour but in reality there would be no increase to my wage. Company says this was discussed and agreed with N E R A in October 2015. The Claimant is claiming an entitlement under the National Minimum Wage Act. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
A NERA inspection took place in July 2012 and by letter in April 2013 they found that the Respondent had complied with the minimum wage legislation. In 2015 the minimum wage was increased to €9.15 per hour. The Respondent wrote to the Claimant and the other relevant staff to inform them that the hourly rate was now €9.16 per hour.
A meeting took place with claimant in January 2016 as he was disputing his pay rates. The calculation was explained to him but he was not satisfied and stated that he ‘would not be working until this matter was sorted’. Je was advised that it was his choice but ‘failure to work would be a different matter (i.e. abandonment of his position).
The Respondent did not hear from the Claimant after this conversation despite several attempts to contact him.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
[Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Section 9(3) of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 9(4) of that Act.
Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 200 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.]
Decision:
I have considered the submissions made by both parties. The Claimant did not present any tangible evidence to prove he was being paid less than the minimum wages. I therefore accept the evidence presented by the Respondent which supports their contention that no breach of the Minimum Wage Act occurred.
I do not find the claim by the Claimant well founded and it fails.
Dated: 25th November 2016