ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008816
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Maintenance Employee | College |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00011517-001 | 23/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 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.
Background:
The complaint is that the Respondent introduced a new rate of pay with a reduction of €1.27 per hour, following an Adjudication Officer decision and that the Respondent acted in breach of the Act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A decision from the WRC dated 22nd June 2016 found in favour of the Complainant and required the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €1032.15. The award was paid by the Respondent but the Complainant’s pay of €16.56 per hour was not restored. The decision of the Adjudicator clearly referred to €16.56 per hour. The Complainant requested that this rate be restored to him. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent complied with the previous Adjudication decision Adj-00000404 which required the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,032.15. It is argued that the Complainant does not have the required qualifications required for the role that he was hired to do. His rate of pay was based on a composite rate which was €16.56 per hour. (€12.50 for General Maintenance and €20.62 for Electrician). In September 2013, the Complainant signed a contract for Electrician and General Maintenance, knowing that he was not a fully qualified Electrician. The Respondent feels strongly that the Complainant misled the Company in this regard for many years. It is the Respondent’s view that it is not bound by that contract as it was issued in good faith. The Company issued new terms and conditions to the Complainant in 2015, to reflect his qualifications. The Company then paid the underpayment on foot of the Adjudication decision and now submits that the Complainant has been paid all monies owed to him. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that this dispute has already been subject to an Adjudication decision, Adj-0000040. Adj-00000404 extract as follows: “The contract of 9th March 2009 has the title “Electrical & General Maintenance Staff”. The rate of pay is stated as €16.56 per hour…I declare the complainant’s complaint to be well founded and I require the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €1,032.15”. I note that the compensation sum was based on an erroneous calculation of the weekly loss that the Complainant occurred from the time of the deduction, and the Respondent adjusted the Complainant’s hourly rate onwards from then. Section 6 (2) of the Act provides that where a complaint is decided to be well founded, the employer can be ordered by the Adjudicator to pay to the employee “compensation of such amount (if any) as he thinks reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding – (a) The net amount of the wages (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that – (i) In case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made.. In Adj-00000404, the compensation was deemed to be reasonable and not exceeding the deductions made for the period to which the complaint relates. In this instant case, I come to the same conclusion that the unilateral change in the rate of pay of the Complainant amounts to a deduction from wages and is in contravention of Section 5 of the Act. The remedies outlined in Section 6 of the Act do not include direct instructions to employers to restore rates of pay. In this instant case, I declare the Complainant’s complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay him the sum of €842 compensation. |
Decision:
I decide that the complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €842.
Dated: 15.11.2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham