ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009838
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A News Editor | A Regional Newspaper |
Complaint(s):
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-00011472-001 | 22/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
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).
Background:
The respondent has employed the complainant since November 1992. He is currently employed as a news editor. He is paid €895.47 per week and works 40 hours per week. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he voluntarily entered an arrangement in January 2015 for a 10% temporary reduction in his wages to facilitate the respondent. He was prepared to sustain the loss over a two-year period but is not able to continue to do so. The nature of the arrangement was that it was voluntary and temporary. He withdrew his consent to the reduction from January 4th of 2017. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that it has sustained losses since 2008 and that it was forced to take corrective action in the matter. The alternatives were difficult and stark. Concerning staff costs it was either the imposition of a three-day week or wage cut. It entered negotiations with the two trade unions involved and struck an agreement for a 10% wage cut for all staff at all levels. Although the situation has improved the company continues to sustain losses. The trade unions have kept the matter under review and the respondent hopes to restore the balance when circumstances allow. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is an extremely difficult situation for all parties. It is obvious that the agreement concluded did not have a specific end date or mechanism for formal review or formal restoration, which is rather unfortunate. However, the collective import must be considered and that within the context of the complainant’s statutory rights under this enactment. It is my view that the agreement reached was open-ended. The voluntary aspect relates to in this case the complainant’s input at the initial phase in the absence of end date or defined mechanism for conclusion. He is entitled to know the exact circumstances in which the agreement would conclude or when it will do so. |
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.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 28th August 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes