Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Retail Team Leader

An Electronics Retailer

Representatives

Self - Represented

Lucy O’Neill, Solicitor of Mason Hayes and Curran Solicitors.

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-00033488-001

03/01/2020

The issue in contention concerns a reduction in the Complainant’s Hourly Rate of Pay by € 0.41 in May 2009.

In May 2009 the Respondent employer was undergoing trading difficulties. Staff Wages were reduced by approximately 3% - in the Complainant’s case from €13.57 to €13.16. The reduction was made unilaterally by Management and was never agreed to by the Complainant. As such it represents an Illegal Deduction under the Payment of Wages Act,1991. Efforts to have the situation recently examined – a request for a meeting was made with the HR Department in December 2019 – have proved unsuccessful.

The Respondent made four points

In the first instance the Complainant is a valued long-standing employee and the Respondent is anxious to meet with him and discuss his concerns. Mix ups over meetings /dates during the extremely busy Christmas period of 2019 have to be excused.

Secondly most of the Records and indeed the Personnel involved for the period of early 2009 are now no longer available. It was approximately 11 years ago. None the less the HR Representative, present at the Hearing, assured all Parties that a full search was underway in all old HR Records/ Archives to see if any relevant material in relation to the Complainant’s Wages could be found.

Thirdly and based on largely colloquial recollections from long standing staff/Managers the Wage reductions of that time, early 2009, had been part of a Corporate Survival package which had been explained at the time. It had been agreed to by all Staff employed at that time, albeit reluctantly but as a package to preserve employment. As the Complainant was employed in the Company at that time he would have been covered by these collective arrangements.

Finally, the Legal representative of the Respondent pointed to Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act,2015 and the requirement to lodge a complaint within six months of the Contravention complained of.

Clearly a complaint received by the WRC on the 3rd January 2020 in relation to an incident in May 2009 is not permitted by the Legislation.

3:1       The relevant Legislation.

In this case it is the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 at Section 41(6)

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

As the Complaint refers to an incident in May 2009 the matter is clearly out of time and cannot proceed.

The claim has to be deemed Not Well Founded on this ground. It cannot proceed.

3:2     General Commentary

The Adjudication Officer noted the positive commitment of the HR Representative present at the Oral Hearing to having full discussions with the Complainant in relation to his HR issues generally.