Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Teacher

A Secondary College

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-00016473-001

18/12/2017

In this case the Complainant seeks redress under the terms of Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, for what he claims are Wages unlawfully deducted from him. He says that this arose from a change to the roster for supervision of student study sessions at the school where he is employed. The roster change had the effect of reducing the hours he worked and consequently the level of wages he received for this work. He further claims that this change was introduced unilaterally.

He with some others started the supervised study sessions for students at the school on a private enterprise basis. They were paid for this service through charges paid for by the parents of the students.

In 2013 the school, by agreement, took over the administration of the study programme and as part of his Post of Responsibility, the Complainant was asked to continue to coordinate the study programme, which included rostering the supervisor attendance times. The Complainant was also a deputy principal.

The Complainant says he worked at the School for more than 25 years. He was one of the teachers who started the “Study Programme” which was supervised, post classes study for pupils of the school. When the Study Programme was first introduced it was managed by the teachers privately. They were paid directly by parent contributions. The Complainant was one of those who introduced and managed the programme.

From 2013 the school Board took over the administration of this Programme. The Complainant was asked to continue as the programme coordinator, for which he was paid extra hours from the programme income.

He says he worked a fixed number of hours each week and submitted a record of these and the hours of other teachers performing the supervision for payment by the school from the programme funds.

He says that in the period 2003-2008 he worked 4 hours per week supervising study and he received a further 2 hours pay for the coordination role on the programme.

After 2008 further study hours were added and his weekly duty hours went up to 8.5 hours, but never less than 6 hours per week.

He says that in January 2017 the programme was suspended for a period of 2 weeks. He says that he was then informed that the School Board had decided to change the terms and conditions of the programme and that a new rota system was introduced which had the effect of reducing the employee’s supervision hours to 4 per week. As he was paid an hourly rate of €47.82 for this work, this resulted in a loss, per week, of €215.19.

He says that, in total, up to 15th December 2017 the hours he lost as a result of the roster change amounted to €2,563.26 and he is claiming this together with any more that the Adjudicator can award under the Act.

He claims this on the basis that pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 that there was no right with the Respondent to unilaterally reduce his wages.

The Respondent is ad idem with the Complainant in relation to the history on how the Study Programme came about and the Claimant’s role in it. This includes the change to the management of the Program in 2013.

The Respondent then goes on to say that the Claimant supplied minimal detail on his complaint form. It appears to the Respondent that the Claimant is not alleging that he did not receive payment for hours actually worked by him, rather, it appears that his claim is for the difference between the hours worked by him, on the study programme, in the autumn term of 2017 versus the hours worked in the same period in 2016.

They say the Complainant has been organising this after school study programme for many years. They also say that in the years 2012-2017 that 80-90% of the total payments made to teachers was made to eight or nine teachers, with remaining teachers receiving minimal amounts. Detail was provided that showed the differences being between payments of hundreds on the one hand and payments, as in the case of the Claimant, being up to €10,000.

The Respondent says that the issue gave rise to dissatisfaction among staff, on lower salary levels in particular, who wanted access and to share in this earning opportunity. The issue was raised at staff meetings and eventually the Principal brought the issue to the attention of the Board. He says he was concerned that it was becoming an increasingly divisive issue among the teaching staff that could lead to Industrial Relations issues.

The principal was directed by the Board to conduct a review of the Programme.

As a follow-on the Principal wrote to the Claimant advising him of a review of the operation of the study programme arising from a number of expressions of staff dissatisfaction over lack of equity in the programme and concern on the part of the Board that this should be addressed. He advised that “the Board’s wish was that this employment issue can be resolved in an amicable fashion”.

The Principal, as part of this review:

               (a)   Met with staff

               (b) Met with staff already participating in the Programme

                (c)   Met with the Claimant

and came to the conclusion that there was a general acceptance that a more equitable distribution of the available hours associated with the Study Programme was necessary. The complainant wrote to the principal saying that it was his “firmest wish that this employment issue can be sorted out in a fair and equitable way and in an amicable fashion”.

Following the Board Meeting the Principal met the Complainant and advised that the Board had decided to proceed with a change to the Programme. The Complainant advised the Principal that he would post a notice inviting applications from staff interested in participating in the roster for supervision of the Study Programme. This was done.

The Complainant revised the roster , including the additional staff. That was introduced in February 2017. The Respondent says that no issues were raised subsequent to the change by any of the staff involved, including the Complainant.

The Complainant continued to roster supervision hours in the new 2017/18 school year. No issue was raised by the Complainant until his December 2018 referral of a complaint to the WRC. This was received by the Respondent on January 10th 2018.

The Respondent submits that there has been no deduction from the wages of the Complainant for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, or at all. That he received his wages, agreed with the College. That he received the hourly Wages agreed for study supervision. That the Complainant has been paid for all his supervision hours and that there has been no reduction in the hourly rate of payment for these hours.

The review of the Study Programme resulted in a more equitable distribution of the supervision hours among teachers. The Respondent acknowledges the contribution made by the Complainant over the years of operation of the programme, but could not ignore that it had become a divisive issue that needed to be addressed.

They further acknowledge that the Complainant cooperated fully in the review of the operation of the Programme.

The Respondent says that, by agreement, there was a redistribution of the supervision hours among a wider cohort of the teaching staff. That as organiser of the Study Programme, the Complainant revised the roster , and did so without objection. As a consequence of this roster change the hours of supervision of the Complainant and a number of other teachers were reduced. In this the Respondent says that the Complainant gave his consent to such a reduction. That this consent of the Complainant to such a reduction, if the reduction in hours is held to be a deduction, that any such deduction is lawful.

The Respondent further says that the Complainant appears to be seeking compensation for the difference in the hours worked by him in the first term of 2017/18 school year by reference the hours worked by him in the same term in 2016. The Respondent submits that this is not a valid claim for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The Respondent also submits that if the Complainant had a grievance that it could have been processed in accordance with the Grievance Procedure for Voluntary Secondary Schools, if there were issues regarding the restructuring of the Study Programme.

Finally, the Respondent submits that the Complainant is out of time in bringing this claim. The change that brought about the reduction in hours and as a consequence the payments made for these hours, was implemented in February 2017 while the claim was lodged in December 2017. This was outside the 6 months allowed for the taking of a claim taken under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

I am asked by the Complainant to decide that he has had a deduction made from his wages contrary to section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and that this came about because he was allocated less hours on the roster than he had heretofore, resulting in less pay as a result of less hours. That this change to his Pay came about without his permission. I cannot so find. I find that there was an agreed change in the roster by which teachers at the school, including the Complainant, were scheduled to work supervision hours on the Study Programme. The Complainant discussed this change with the School Principal and subsequently implemented the change by inviting teachers to apply for the supervision roles and drawing up the roster to facilitate the change. He had the opportunity, at that time, or subsequently, to process a grievance through the Grievance Procedure available to him at the school. I accept the Respondent’s assertion that there was no reduction in the hourly rate. It was a reduction in hours worked on the Programme, by agreement.

I also find in favour of the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant is out of time in taking this case, if it were covered by the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

I find that the claim fails