Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  Williamson

The Drain Crew The Maintenance Crew

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00052051-001

02/08/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00052051-002

02/08/2022

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

He was approached in September 2021 with a job offer which included a 25% share in the respondent company. His net pay was to be €850.

He got a phone call on February 24th to discuss money issues but as he was going to London early the next morning, he said he would discuss it on his return. However, he became ill so could not return to work immediately.

He received a pay slip on March 3rd, 2022, showing net pay of €200.

He raised this with the accountant who informed him he had been instructed to reduce the wages and sick pay. No formal conversation had taken place with him on this or written documentation issued.

The following week, on return to work, he met his employer and had a conversation about the salary reduction.

The complainant informed him that he could not survive on the reduced wage and the respondent said to leave it with him.  

A number of weeks passed with no update, and he had another discussion with the respondent. At this stage he was having to rely on his savings.

The respondent said he had no choice and suggested the complainant might be better off working directly for another contractor.  It was at the end of this meeting that the complainant decided to explore that option.

Concluding this took several weeks to thrash out a deal with the new employer and he then handed in one week’s notice to the respondent.

He pursued the shortfall in wages and was informed it would be investigated by a HR company.

He then received a call from the respondent on June 2nd alleging that he had agreed to the pay cut. The respondent made an accusation that diesel or a fuel card had been used improperly.

The reductions occurred between week 9 and week 22 of 2022 of 350€ after tax this equates to a sum of €4,550.

This deduction was a breach of the initial terms of employment from November 2021. The employment ceased June 3rd, 2022.

The respondent Tony Murphy gave evidence on affirmation.

He said that the complainant, David Williamson started employment with ‘The Maintenance Crew’ in November 2021 and was a director with 25% shareholding and €850 per week after tax.

He was to look after all sites for company and to fit one house a day to justify the agreed wages.

In February 2022 the company accountants reviewed the accounts and concluded that the company was not sustainable based on then current income and overheads. He was advised to either close the company down or apply a pay cut to both himself and the complainant until more revenue could be generated.

The main issue was that the complainant was only averaging completion of two houses a week and should have been averaging five, resulting in greatly reduced income. 

At the meeting with him on the March 9th, 2022, he, (the complainant) verbally agreed the pay-cut and agreed to continued.

Then some weeks later he decided to leave The Maintenance Crew.

While the respondent has not disputed the complaint in respect of the reduction of the wages, he has offered an explanation for his decision to do so and says that it reflected financial challenges to his business.

However, while the respondent also gave evidence that he believed the complainant had agreed to this I do not find this credible, and I prefer the evidence of the complainant that he did not do so.

In any event, the respondent said only that ‘he thought’ that the complainant had agreed to it.  This seems so unlikely given its severe impact on his living standards that it adds weight to his assertion that he did not so.

Further, there was no supporting evidence that the complainant had accepted the reduction.

Therefore, I find the reduction was applied unilaterally and without the consent of the complainant and the complaint is well-founded. The sum of €4550.00 net wages claimed is properly due to the complainant.

It was not possible to establish what the gross wage was and therefore the respondent should ensure that the after-tax value of €4550.00 is protected in making the payment to the complainant which I award below.

The complainant did not offer any evidence in respect of complaint CA-00052051-002.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00052051-001 is well-founded and my award is that the respondent must pay the complainant the net sum of €4550.00 after all taxes and statutory contributions.

Complaint CA-00052051-002 is not well founded.

Payment of Wages