ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003680

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

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

Background

The union submitted that the respondent is one of 51 companies which operates the money budgeting and advisory services throughout the state. The organization is funded by the Department of Social Protection through the Citizens Information Board which is responsible for the disbursement of DSP funds to the respondent.

In May of 2015, the respondent was instructed to divide the annual salary by 52.18 to reflect the extra day in the leap year. This method of calculation of weekly wage was implemented on the 1st January 2016 which involved the gross salary of the claimant being divided by 52.18 instead of the customary 52 weeks thereby resulting in a reduction in pay in the current year. The net result is that the claimant suffers a loss of €3.11 per week. It was submitted that the employment contract of the claimant does not refer to anything other than working a 35-hour week . She has been employed at least 5 years and feels very strongly that this reduction has been made without her consent.

While it was accepted that the amount involved in this case is relatively small on a weekly basis, it is not insignificant over 12 months. The union also raised the increased workload the claimant has taken on over the past number of years.

The respondent for their part submitted that they are fully bound by CIB instructions. In correspondence of the 21st May 2015 they were advised that the correct way is to divide the annual salary was by 52.18 weeks formula to take account of the leap year.. There was no evidence that the claimant is paid less than the appropriate point on the salary scale. It was submitted that the respondent has not made any unlawful deductions to the claimant's wages.

Findings

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing.

Complaint received by the service on the 23rd June 2016

I find that having carefully examined all documentation submitted I find that dividing the yearly salary by 52.18 formula is rarely used. I find that the claimant has an implied term and condition of employment whereby the salary was divided by 52 weeks. I find that the claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 7th January 2009 and that she was paid at point 1 on the scale at the time. The contract further states that the salary is paid weekly.. I find that from 4th January 2016 a deduction has been made from her salary without her consent.

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 and following investigation. I find the complaint to be well founded and in breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act and I instruct the respondent to repay all net monies deducted since the 4th January 2016.

Dated:   4^th April 2017