Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Quality inspector

Medical Devices manufacturer

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-00029187-001

20/06/2019

This is complaint that the respondent unlawfully deducted the sum of €1314 from his pay in March 2019.

The complainant commence employment with the respondent on 14 September 2015 as an Operator. He was promoted on a fixed term contact to the position of Quality Inspector for the period 1 September 2018- 1une 2019.

His weekly gross pay is €657 for which he works 42 hours.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 20 June 2019

The complainant commenced work with the respondent on 14 September 2015 as an operator. He was promoted to the position of Quality Inspector, assessing the respondent’s medical devices and products on a fixed term contract. His contract for this role provided for 2 weeks’ paid notice should it be terminated. The contract was to run from 1 September 2018 – 1 June 2019, but on 19 March 2019 the respondent informed the complainant that he would revert back to the role of Operator on 25 March. His pay would be reduced from €12.01 to €11.28 per hour.

The respondent advised the complainant on the 19 March that there was no more need for a Quality Inspector on the night shift. The complainant maintains that he should have been offered the position of Quality Inspector on the day shift instead and held the rate of €12.01 per hour. He engaged in a grievance process with the respondent. No agreement was reached.

He also maintained that he was overtaxed on his salary of 5 September.

The respondent advised that due to unforeseen business reasons they had to terminate the complainant’s fixed term contact on 25 March, instead of allowing it to run its course until 1 June 2019. The complainant at a later meeting accepted that there was no continuing g need for a Quality Inspector on the night shift

Efforts were made to discuss the complainant’s return to the role of Operator with the complainant from the 6 March, but the complainant was unavailable.

The complainant’s contract sets out a grievance procedure which should be followed before a complaint is referred to the WRC. The first the company knew of the complaint was when they were notified of its existence by the WRC.

The grievance procedure was activated, and meetings took place with the complainant on 8 and 16 August. The respondent offered to pay the complainant the difference between the rate payable to an Operator and the rate payable to the Quality Inspector from 25 March to 1 June 2019.

The complainant declined to accept the offer.

The respondent paid the complainant the sum of €473 (€330 net) on the 5 September which equalled the difference in earnings between the salary of a Quality Inspector and the salary of an Operator for the period 25 March to 1 June 2019.

The respondent states that they have no case to answer.

The question for determination is whether or not the respondent’s failure to pay the complainant the rate applicable to a Quality Inspector for the full duration of the fixed term contract contravened section 5(1)(2) of the Act of 1991. It prohibits a deduction unless the

“deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances”.

Section   5 (6) of the Act of 1991 goes on to identify a deduction as follows:

“the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

By virtue of the complainant’s contract, I find that the rate properly payable to the complainant for the entire period of 1 September 2018 to 1 June 2019 was the rate of €12.01 per hour.

I find that the respondent belatedly made good the difference and honoured the terms of the fixed term contract by paying the complainant the sum of €473 (€330 net) on the 5 September.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.