Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Former Employee

A Company

Representatives

none 

Lucy O'Neill Mason Hayes & 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-00036598-001

09/06/2020

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 8th July 2019. The complaint was submitted to the WRC on the 9th June, 2020.

The Complainant submitted on his Complaint Form that the Respondent had imposed a 30% wage cut by email for the purported reason of saving jobs. The Complainant had objected to the proposed wage cut which he stated was not agreed with him, that he considered the proposed change a breach of contract and that it did not go towards saving his own job. The Complainant had maintained in various email exchanges with the Respondent that any proposed wage cut could only be implemented by agreement. The Complainant had also maintained that the workload had not changed and that he continued to work 100% of the time which he stated was necessary for service delivery.

The Complainant furnished copies of emails including the following:

·       1st May, 2020 received by Complainant from Respondent’s HR;

·       8th May 2020 from Complainant to Respondent’s HR;

·       12th May 2020 from Complainant to Respondent’s HR;

·       20th May 2020 received by Complainant from Respondent’s HR;

·       22nd May 2020 from Complainant to Respondent’s HR;

·       10th June 2020 received by Complainant from Respondent’s HR;

The Complainant also furnished copy of his contract.

The Respondent disputed the complaint. The Respondent provided copy of the Complainant’s contract of employment, copies of the various emails exchanged with the Complainant (which had also been furnished by the Complainant) and a written submission which, inter alia, stated:

·       That due to the impact of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic on its business, the company had no alternative but to temporarily reduce the Complainant’s hours of work by 30% with a proportionate reduction in pay – which lasted from 11 May – 11 June 2020;

·       That the Respondent had contractual authority to reduce the Complainant’s working hours with proportionate pay reduction by virtue of clause 43 of his contract of employment which stated that: “The Company reserves the right to lay off without pay and/or place its employees on short term and effect a proportionate reduction in pay, where this is deemed by the Company to be necessary for business reasons”;

·       That Section 5(1)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act [1991-2017] permits an employer to make a deduction from the wages of an employee where this is authorised “by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment….”;

·       That the Respondent – by email – had explained the reasons and sought the consent of the Complainant for the temporary reduction, but this was not accepted by the Complainant.

The Respondent cited various cases in support of its position.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 9th June, 2020 alleging that the Respondent had unlawfully imposed a 30% wage reduction and contravened the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act [1991-2017]. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation.

A remote adjudication hearing was held on the 9th November, 2020. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. Having waited for approximately twenty minutes I proceeded with the hearing.

Having checked the file and checked with the WRC office, I am satisfied that the Complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the remote hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. In this regard, the parties were notified of the date and time of the remote hearing by letter from the WRC dated 16th October, 2020 and were subsequently emailed the webex meeting details on the 5th November, 2020.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.  

CA-00036598-001

For the reasons outlined, I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Wage deduction - Authority to deduct