ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Location of Hearing: WRC Hearing Room Sligo

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 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).

Summary of Claimant’s Position

The claimant commenced employment as Store Manager with the respondent in 2011- she set out a chronology of her career with the company and her success up until Dec.2015 when she was the subject of a disciplinary investigation – culminating in a disciplinary meeting on the 8^th.Feb.2016.The claimant’s dismissal was confirmed by post on the 17^th.Feb and this was appealed by the claimant on the 18^th.Feb.

The outcome of the appeal was that the dismissal was withdrawn – the revised sanction was a final written warning, a 12 month demotion to Assistant Manager with action plan, a move to another store and a pay decrease of €1,000 per month. On the 20^th.May 2016, the claimant sought to appeal the foregoing sanctions but was advised that the appeal process had been exhausted and no further appeal would be entertained. The claimant left the company in Sept. 2016.The claimant submitted documentary evidence of the investigation and appeal process – she submitted that ultimately the process was unfair and consequently the sanction imposed by way of demotion to Asst Manager resulted in an illegal deduction. She submitted the reduction in pay imposed by way of sanction was an illegal deduction under the Act.

Summary of Respondent's Position

The respondent denied any breach of the Act and submitted that no claim exists under Section 6 – “ the demotion of the claimant , as a result of the disciplinary process , resulted in a reduction in her salary so is therefore no a deduction and is not unlawful within the Payment of Wages Act 1991.”

The provisions of McKensie & PDFORRA v Minister for Finance, Minister for Defence and Others and Redmond v South Eastern Health Board , PW47/96 were invoked in support of the foregoing arguments. It was contended that the Act did not apply as the respondent paid the complainant all wages due to her in line with her reduced salary .It was contended that the Act allows for a deduction as a consequence of disciplinary procedures   and that the respondent’s handbook makes specific provision for demotion as a disciplinary sanction. It was advanced that accordingly the sanctions set out in the handbook form part of the claimant’s terms and conditions and application of same is allowable under the Act.

Decision:

Section 41 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 have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and the authorities relied upon by the respondent. While I acknowledge the claimant’s industrial relations arguments challenging the investigation /disciplinary process, I find the claimant was paid wages “properly payable” in the context of her demotion and accordingly I do not uphold the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Dated:   25^th April 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea