ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001722

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/06/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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).

29 claimants V Foroige

6 named employees as test case.

CA00002414, CA00002417, CA00002524, CA00002438, CA00002445, CA00002410

Background

The complaint is on behalf of 28 claimants all employed by the respondent. It was agreed between the parties that 6 test cases would be used. The claimants are seeking the restoration of their increments from January 2016. The claimants are seeking compensation under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act where the Adjudicator decides that the complaint is well founded in regard to the whole or a part of the deduction or pay, and shall order the respondent to pay to the claimants compensation of such amount as he thinks reasonable in the circumstances.

On the 2nd October 2013 the respondent emailed employees about a series of meetings to be held on the 9th October 2013, the specific purpose of the meeting was to present a management recommendation in relation to salary cuts and freezes on increment in order to address the financial challenges facing the organisation.

The union wrote to the respondent on the 16th October 2013 seeking a meeting which was declined. On the 21st October 2013 the respondents Chief Executive informed staff that the National Executive had agreed to their particular recommendation without amendment. It was submitted that the respondent would review the salary reduction annually and the increment pay freeze in 2016. It was submitted by the union that staff refused to sign a letter stating they agreed to the proposed changes. Following on from a number of contacts between the union and the respondent the issue was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

On the 5th March ‘15 a set of proposals was put to both parties under the auspices of an Industrial Officer which were agreed.

The respondent submitted that there was no contractual entitlement or otherwise on part of any claimant to payment of an incremental and accordingly their claims do not fall within the terms of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

There has been no deduction lawful or otherwise within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Acts. It was further submitted that if there was a contractual entitlement, then it only existed prior to October 2013 and the contractual entitlement was irrevocably altered by letter signed on behalf of the respondent in October and which may be considered an amendment in terms and conditions of employment for the purpose of section 5 of the Terms of Employment Information Act 1991.

Findings

Both parties made significant written and verbal submissions at the hearing. I find that while the parties have agreed that 6 named employees would be used for the hearing purposes, the claim affects 28/29 other employees. I find that the relationship between the parties could do with improvement for the betterment of all and in the interest of good industrial relations. I find that having given careful consideration to the arguments put forward on behalf of both parties, I find that an agreement was reached under the auspices of the LRC on the 5th of March 2015.

I find that as part of that proposal, on point 1 concerning pay cuts, incremental credit freeze and reduced hours, the parties is agreed that these matters will be subject to review in the 2015/16 period and management undertake to inform, of developments in a timely manner.

I find that union stated at the hearing that no such review took place. I find that this was disappointing since it was agreed in the proposals from the 5^th March 2015 that staff would be informed of developments.

I find in all circumstances that the offer on point 3 of the WRC proposal should be taken up by the parties

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.

I find that the claims under the Payment of Wages Act are not well founded and fall.

Dated 06/10/2016