ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017252
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A welder | A Pipe system manufacturing company |
Representatives | Siobhan McLaughlin Citizens Information Centre | In person |
Complaints:
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-00022326-001 | 03/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00022326-002 | 03/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00022326-003 | 03/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/01/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint / dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The Complainant started work for the Respondent on 29 January 2018. His employment ended on 29 August 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA 00022326-001 (Pay) The Complaint is that, when the Complainant started work, it was agreed that he would work at a rate of €16 per hour. In July for a 4-week period he was asked to work welding trestle cages and was paid instead on a piece meal rate of €2.50 per cage. He was expected to do 40 cages per day, and to meet this expectation he had to furnish the number of completed trestle cages at the end of each day to the Respondent. He contends that he never agreed to the change of pay to a piece meal basis. It was only when he received his pay that he noticed that his weekly salary was short that he raised this with his employer. His co- worker seemed to have been told about the different rate of them being paid, but he had not been informed. The short fall in his earnings (€192) was confined to the period of 4 weeks that he was doing the cage welding job and after then, his pay reverted back to the agreed rate of €16 per hour. His complaint is that, as he had not agreed to accept the change in pay rate from an hourly basis to a piece meal basis, this was a unilateral change in his contract of employment, which was not recorded in writing and he did not accept. Consequently, this was a unlawful deduction from his wages, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. CA 00022326-002 (OWT) The Complainant contends that he was not paid for all his annual leave entitlement, under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and claims the shortfall of €92.16, which is conceded by the Respondent. CA 00022326-003 (T&C) The Complainant did not receive his terms and conditions of employment within 2 months of commencement in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1994, which is conceded by the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA 00022326-001 (Pay) The owner of the Respondent states that he informed the Complainant and the other worker in July 2018 that for the following 4 weeks, he would have no pipe preparation work available and that they would either have to be laid off for 4 weeks or weld trestle cages for 4 weeks instead, working on a piece meal basis of €2.50 per cage. He denied the Complainant’s charge that he had not been informed. He questioned the veracity of this by asking if the Complainant did not know about the change in pay rate, why did he furnish the number of trestle cages that he had completed at the end of each day, as this would be unnecessary if he thought he was being paid €16 per hour, regardless of his production efficiency. CA 00022326-002 (OWT) The holiday shortfall claim of €92.16 is conceded CA 00022326-003 (T&C) It is conceded that no terms and conditions of employment in writing were issued to the Complainant |
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.
CA 00022326-001 (Pay). On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant in relation to this complaint. I consider that the text communication between the parties favours the Complainant’s version of event, namely that he was not made aware of the change in his rate of pay in July 2018. I accept the Complainant’s evidence that the reason that he furnished the number of completed trestle cages to the Respondent each day was not in order to be paid but rather to inform the Respondent as to how much work had been done. I find this complaint to be well founded. I award the Complainant the amount of €192.00 CA 00022326-002 (OWT). This complaint is conceded and therefore I find this complaint to be well founded. I award to the Complainant the amount of €92.16 CA 00022326-003 (T&C). This complaint is conceded and therefore I find this complaint to be well founded. I award to the Complainant the amount of €800.00 |