Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Apprentice

A Manufacturer

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001509

03/01/2023

The worker commenced employment on 3 August 2021 until his dismissal on 3 October 2022. He contends that he is owed appropriately €1,315 arising from being placed on €9.18 per hour for a period of 5 months instead of the national minimum hourly rate applying at the time. The employer acknowledged that the worker was placed on the incorrect rate for several months and calculated a shortfall of €929.30 in wages for the relevant period. It is the employer’s case that the worker was thereafter paid an hourly rate which was more than the national minimum wage and the apprenticeship rate applying to the worker and so in effect he was overpaid wages by the amount of €11,034.28 for the remainder of his employment.

The worker outlined that he commenced employment on 3 August 2021 at the age of 21. For the first five months of his employment he was placed on the ‘aged 19’ national hourly minimum wage applying at the time of €9.18. Some months later the worker realised that he should have been paid the ‘experienced adult worker’ rate. The worker stated that he brought this to the attention of either the Managing Director or the Production Manager, but he cannot recall whom. In December 2021 the worker signed a contract of employment and was placed on an hourly wage of €10.50. The worker outlined that this addressed his concerns regarding his hourly rate; however, he now wishes to recover the differential between the rate he was on and the rate he should have been on for the period August 2021 to December 2021.

The employer stated that he has no recollection of the worker asking him to adjust his hourly rate from €9.18 to €10.20 per hour.  In December 2021 the worker was placed on an hourly rate of €10.50 which was more than the national minimum wage of €10.20 applying at the time.

With the agreement of the worker the employer sought approval for the worker to be placed on an Apprenticeship for Metal Fabrication. The employer forewarned the worker that if he was accepted onto an apprenticeship, his hourly rate of pay would reduce significantly. A Contract of Apprenticeship was issued to the worker, and he commenced the apprenticeship on 20 December 2021. However, the employer was concerned that the cost of living had increased substantially, and the employer decided to continue to pay the worker €10.50 per hour rather than placing him on the significantly lower apprenticeship rate. The employer continued to pay the worker the higher hourly rate of €10.50 per hour until his employment ended on 3 October 2022.

The employer opened a wages report which had been sent to the worker on 26 October 2022. This report was also submitted to the WRC in advance of the hearing and had been copied by the WRC to the worker in advance of the hearing. This report showed that the worker was under paid by €929.30 between the period of 3 August 2021 to 17 December 2021. The report also showed that had the worker received the apprenticeship rate applying at the time, he would have earned a total amount of €8,513.82 for the period January 2022 until his employment ended in October 2022. As the employer paid the worker €10.50 per hour, which was significantly more than the apprenticeship rate, the worker was in effect overpaid to the sum of €11,034.28. The employer felt that this dispute was only being presented to the WRC now, over a year later, because the employer had terminated the worker’s employment. The employer submitted that it was satisfied that it had paid the worker more than it was legally obliged to over the course of the worker’s employment.

The employer told the hearing that it had no difficulty paying the worker any wages due to him should the Adjudication Officer recommend that the sum of €929.30 be paid to the worker. The employer also expressed the desire to have the matter resolved. The employer stated that it had no difficulty with the WRC amending the complaint form to include a dispute under s 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The employer acknowledged that the worker was owed €929.30 for the period 3 August 2021 to 17 December 2021. The shortfall in wages for the period concerned meant that the worker was earning less than the national minimum wage applicable to him for a period short of 5 months in 2021. I note that the worker was then placed on a rate of pay which was more than the national minimum wage and considerably more that the apprenticeship rate applying to the worker, however, it was the employer’s choice to do this. The employer, who came across at the hearing as a pragmatic and reasonable employer, expressed his desire to have the dispute resolved.  

I recommend that the worker is paid €929.30 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Wages.