ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028573
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Driver | Transport Company |
Representatives | The complainant represented himself | Rebecca DeGroot Peninsula |
Complaint(s):
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-00036999-001 | 16/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/01/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant submitted that he was employed as a driver with the respondent from the 1st.Feb. 2016 to the 13th.June 2020 – he maintained that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his wages of €200 when a pay cut was proposed by the respondent on the 6th.June 2020.The claimant submitted that because he did not agree with the pay cut, he was not called into work. The complainant submitted that agreement had been reached with the respondent in 2016 to pay the claimant €200 per day after tax while the employer was now imposing a rate of €200 a day before tax. He submitted that this would reduce his wages by €200 per week even though he would continue to work for the same number of hours in a truck away from home. He further asserted that there was no end date given for the wage reduction. The complainant said he was ready to work but not on the reduced rate – he asserted that he wanted the same terms and conditions of employment as had always applied .The complainant asserted that there was no work on offer and clarified that he had not signed his contract of employment as there were a number of issues he did not agree with contained in the contract.The complainant stated that he was already underpaid and that the company were unable to recruit drivers because of their reputation .The claimant denied that an allegation made by the respondent to the effect that he had obtained alternative employment elsewhere. The claimant asserted that he never refused to go back to work “After I refused a pay cut, I was never offered to do any work” for the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s case
| It was submitted that the respondent company is a family run transport business which had suffered significant financial losses arising from COVID -19 restrictions, the novel nox charge imposed on new cars and the impact of Brexit. Owing to the reduction in revenue and workload the respondent was faced with laying off staff or reducing hours and salaries to remain financially stable. All employees were presented with a proposed salary reduction in June 2020 – the claimant ‘s salary was to be reduced from €1,000 net per week to €1,000 gross resulting in a reduction of €120 per week. It was submitted that the claimant refused to accept the reduction and refused to work after the 14th.June 2020.It was submitted that there were no hours worked after that date and consequently no payment was due to the claimant. It was advanced that accordingly no deduction was made.It was submitted that the monies in question are not properly payable by virtue of the fact that the claimant was not employed at the end of each relevant month in the cognisable period.
The respondent submitted copies of emails into evidence which it was argued supported their contention that the claimant was offered work.It was submitted that all of the other staff in the employment accepted the pay reduction. |
Case Findings and Conclusions:
Having reviewed the evidence presented by the parties and noting that both parties confirmed that the claimant’s wages were never actually reduced, I find that no breach of the Act occurred.
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.
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Accordingly, I declare that the complaint was not well founded |
Dated: 27-04-2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Key Words:
Proposed Wage Reduction |