Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Flooring Company

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-00030019-001

01/08/2019

The complainant states that in 2006, the respondent informed all staff that there was to be a 10 percent cut in the wages due to financial difficulties being experienced by the company when the recession hit. The complainant asserts that the respondent said if he agreed to said pay cut, he would get his wages back when the company’s financial situation improved. The date of the deduction was 1st March 2006. The complainant submits that it is now 2019 and he has still not had his pay restored as the respondent states that there is no money to restore the wages to the 2006 levels prior to the pay cut. The complainant states that other staff have received pay rises since 2006 and he feels that he is being unfairly treated in this regard. The complainant states that going forward he would like to have his pay restored as he was promised.    

The respondent states that following the financial difficulties when the recession hit in 2006, there was a restructuring of the business undertaken. The respondent states that this happened under a previous company TH Carpets Ltd which has since being liquidated. As a result, the relevant records were all handed over to the liquidator. The respondent states that in February 2011 Lynfrae Trading Co. Ltd. t/a R & TH Carpets commenced trading. The respondent states that the complainant together with several employees were employed at this time on the pay rates which still apply today. The respondent states that there has been no funding available for any review to these pay rates since. The respondent maintains that the company is not in a good place financially and that the respondent himself has not received a wage in several months. The respondent reiterates that he is simply not in a position to review pay rates due to the current economic and financial position that the company is experiencing.    

As per section 6(4) of this Act, the claim is out of time due to the fact that the claim refers to a period of time well beyond the six months’ time limit provided for in section 6(4) of the Act. Pursuant to the High Court case Moran v Employment Appeals Tribunal [2014] IEHC 145 and Health Service Executive v McDermott {2014] IEHC 331, the High Court was asked to consider the meaning “within the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”. These High Court judgments confirm that, having regard to how the complainant herein described his claim (with effect from 2006) which is a period that is well beyond the six month statutory period provided in the Payment of Wages Act, as a consequence, this claim is out of time. Mr Justice Hogan relying upon the Moran decision in the McDermott decision held as follows; “This was because the complaint as formulated by the claimant in that case related to a period of time well beyond the six month statutory period provided for in section 6(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the within complaint fails as it is out of time.

I find that the within complaint is out of time as the claim relates to a period of time well beyond the six month statutory period provided for in section 6(4) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint fails.