ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002853

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

 Background.

The Complainant has been employed from 16^th March 2011 until the employment terminated on 9^th May 2016. The Complainant was paid €9.51 an hour and he worked 37.5 hours a week.

The Complainant referred three complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 19^th April 2016 alleging the Respondent had breached the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – had breached the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and had breached the Employment Equality Act on the basis of his civil status.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

Employment Equality Act, 1998. The Complainant presented no evidence in relation to this complaint.

Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant stated that when he commenced in 2011 he was paid €9.31 an hour and was paid for all his breaks and on Sunday he was paid time and a half if he worked on a Sunday. He stated that effective from 10^th December 2015 and ongoing without notice in writing he was deducted 2.5 hours per week to cover all his breaks. He stated he met a named Manager of the Respondent to complaint and he was informed that the Respondent would not be changing its position.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Complainant stated that he worked every Sunday and that 1.25 an hour was paid on Sundays. In January 2016 the rate of pay was increased from €9.31 an hour to €9.51 an hour to include payment for Sunday Premium. The Complainant stated that this was not in writing to him

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Respondent stated there was a meeting of all employees on 18^th January 2016, the Complainant did not attend. The employees were informed that the hourly rate was to increase to €9.51 an hour. This was increased from February 2016. The Complainant was notified in writing and was issued with a new Contract of Employment incorporating the new changes, which provided for an hourly rate of €9.51 an hour, to exclude payment for lunch breaks and also incorporating payment for Sunday working. They also introduced a new clock-in, clock out system in compliance with the Act.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Respondent outlined the changes to be made following a staff meeting held on 18^th January 2016 with the changes to take effect from the first pay week of February 2016

Findings. 

Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant t was paid €9.31 an hour from the commencement of his employment. Both Parties also confirmed that there was a staff meeting held on 18^th January 2016 and both parties confirmed that the Complainant did not attend.

Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had been issued with a revised Contract of Employment in accordance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. This sets out the increase in the hourly rate to €9.51 an hour, which includes lunch breaks which are unpaid and is stated as being a composite rate which includes a premium for working on a Sunday. I note that the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant dated 8^th March 2016 stating that he was required to sign the new contract and that if he was not he should inform the Respondent. The Complainant did inform the Respondent on the same date, 8^th March 2016 that he did not agree with the new contract.

I find that the Complainant was informed in writing of the change in his hourly rate from €9 .31 to €9.51, that he would not be paid for lunch breaks, (which does not breach Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997).

I find the Complainant has not established there was any breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Section 14 of the Act requires an Employer to pay an Employee a Premium for Working on a Sunday provided that an employee who is required to work on a Sunday is not otherwise compensated. The evidence was that following a meeting of all employees on 18^th January 2016, which the Complainant did not attend, the hourly rate of pay was to be increased from €9.31 an hour to €9.51 an hour and this was stated to be a composite rate incorporating payment for working on Sundays in the revised contract of employment issued to the Complainant in February 2016.

There is no dispute between the Parties but that the Complainant was paid a Sunday Premium up to February 2016 when his contract was revised.

I find there is no breach of Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Employment Equality Act, 1998.

I find that as the Complainant failed to present any evidence or make any submission in relation to his complaint that he was discriminated against on the basis of his civil status, I do not have jurisdiction in relation to this complaint.

Decision.

Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00003950-002

In accordance with Section 41 (5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and in view of my findings above I declare this complaint is not well founded.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00003950-001

In accordance with Section 41 (5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and in light of my findings above I declare this complaint is not well founded.

Employment Equality Act, 1998.

In accordance with Section 79 (6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Rosaleen Glackin

Adjudication Officer

Date:               15 February 2017