Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Stock File Support Assistant

A Retail Store

Representatives

Mary Smith Meath Citizens Information Service

Niamh Ní Cheallaigh IBEC

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-00012770-001

25/07/2017

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since October 2008 as a Stock File Support Assistant and is paid a gross annual salary of €12,667.20. This complaint relates to the method of calculation of the Complainant’s hourly rate of pay.

The Complainant contends that her hourly rate of pay was unilaterally reduced by the employer. The Complainant’s position is that her hourly basic rate of pay should have remained at €11.95 per hour plus an additional “gears” payment of 40c per hour which is payable to those who have completed “gears” training.

The Complainant contends that when the Respondent introduced a new payroll system called “Dayforce” in January 2017 her hourly rate of pay was reduced to €11.35 plus a 40c “gears” payment as well as an additional 20c per hour keyholders allowance which the Complainant contends was not due to her as she is not a keyholder.

The Complainant’s position is that it is the basic rate of pay that is used to calculate overtime and other payments and that the reduced basic rate of pay on the payslip since the introduction of “Dayforce” will inevitably result in a loss of earnings.

The Complainant’s position is that the respondent’s actions represent an illegal deduction in contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Respondent’s position is that the issue relating to the keyholders allowance has been resolved and is no longer being paid to the Complainant. The respondent stated that the introduction of the Dayforce payroll system has effectively split the hourly rate of pay into a basic rate plus a “gears” payment and is shown like this on the payslip so that all pay rates across the Company are correctly aligned.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant is in receipt of the same amount of money and is not at any loss as a result of the introduction of the new payroll system.

The Respondent contends that it has not breached the legislation in any way.

In relation to this complaint, I note the following:

The Respondent confirmed that the hourly rate of pay is currently €12.18. This rate is made up of the basic amount of €11.78 (previously €11.75) plus the 40c ” gears” payment.

The Respondent also confirmed that all calculations for holiday pay and overtime or redundancy should it arise would be calculated on the basis of the hourly rate inclusive of the “gears” payment.

The Respondent also stated that the Complainant would continue to receive the hourly rate of pay that she currently receives irrespective of whether she continued to attend the “gears” training programme.

I find that at the adjudication hearing, an understanding was reached between the parties in relation to the calculation of the hourly rate of pay which was confirmed by the Respondent and appears to have been accepted by the Complainant.

Having considered the written and verbal submissions of both parties, I find that the Respondent did not breach Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

In all of the circumstances of this case, I find that the Respondent did not make an illegal deduction from the Complainant’s salary in contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Accordingly, I declare that the complaint is not well founded.

Illegal deduction