ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013423
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Language Teacher (9) | A Language School |
Representatives | Murchan & Company, Solicitors. | McInnes Dunne, Solicitors. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00017834-001 | 08/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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:
This is one of nine similar cases taken by this complainant and eight co-workers who are employed as language teachers. The background lies partly in a purported change in the complainant’s contract of employment and ensuing events and also in cost reduction measures which were applied some years ago and which the complainant says were due to be reversed when the financial position improved. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This is a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act and arises from the failure of the respondent to restore a reduction in pay made in 2010. At the time, the complainant and her colleagues agreed to the reduction on the basis of a commitment that in due course, when the respondent ‘s financial position improved, the cut would be restored. It has not been. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent says that it had made extensive efforts to resolve matters with the complainant (and her co-workers). These included an internal consultation process and a mediation conducted by an external mediator. Regarding the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act the respondent says that the pay reduction in 2010 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Act which is concerned with deductions from wages (Section 5(1)). This does not concern an unlawful or any deduction from wages and the complainant agreed to accept the reduction which took place in 2010. The actual complaint is that the respondent has not reviewed this reduction which is not a matter that arises under the Act. The respondent denies that there was any commitment to review this. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant and her co-workers have found themselves in a WRC process not entirely suited to resolving their various grievances. They are fully entitled to pursue their complaints, of course, but the range of issues raised is primarily a testimony to a failure of industrial relations in their workplace. In particular, the issue raised about the restoration of the 5% reduction in wages in 2010 falls into this category and not under the Payment of Wages Act. More generally, and arising from discussions at the hearings and the parties’ wish to move forward I have made some recommendations to assist them elsewhere. The complaint under the Payment of Wages Act is not upheld. |
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.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00017854-001. |
Dated: December 17th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Pay determination |