ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004007

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/08/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 following the referral of the complaint 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.

:

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Following a transfer of undertakings the complainant transferred to the respondent company on 1 February 2015. Before transferring his weekly hours were the equivalent of 20. These were made up of 17 hours during the week and 2 hours on Sunday paid at time and a half. Some time after the transfer took effect the complainant noticed that he was getting paid for 17.5 hours per week. When this matter was raised with Mr MC for the respondent he would not accept that the information regarding the hours supplied by Siptu was accurate.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent contends that the complainant is paid in accordance with the information given to the respondent by his former employer. The respondent is not satisfied that he works the hours claimed.

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. Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Section 6 of that Act.

Issues for Decision:

Whether the complaint in relation to the deduction of wages is well founded and, if so, the appropriate compensation.

Conclusions:

Following the transfer of undertaking the respondent was required to implement the same conditions of employment in respect of the complainant as those that pertained prior to the transfer. The dispute centres on the number of fixed hours that the complainant was contracted to work. There is no suggestion that the complainant was on variable weekly hours.   When the complainant became aware of the discrepancy he secured information from his previous employer to support his contention that he should have been paid for 20 hours per week rather than 17.5. The respondent has confirmed that he did not subsequently check this information with the former employer but rather chose to rely on the initial information he had received from that employer. In the circumstances I conclude that the complainant’s hours should be fixed at 17 during the week and 2 on Sunday (at time and a half), meaning fixed weekly payment for 20 hours.

Section 5 of the Act provides that an Employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee unless – 

There was no evidence advanced by the Respondent that the deduction was authorised to be made either by statute or by the Complainant’s Contract of Employment.

Decision:

I have investigated the above complaint and find in accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 that the complaint is well founded.

In accordance with s.6 of the Act, I order the Respondent to cease the deduction and pay the Complainant the sum of € 600 in compensation.

The total award is redress of the Complainant’s statutory rights and therefore not subject to income tax as per s. 192 A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 as amended by s.7 of the Finance Act 2004.

Dated:   07-11-2016