ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049606

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Marta Gawlik	Octavian Popa Limited T/A Salt Cave Paradise

Representatives

Self-represented

General Manager

Complaint:

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-00060481-001	11/12/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text and the Respondent’s employees are referred to by their job titles.

The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in. The interpreter was also sworn in.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.

The Complainant was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by the General Manager, Kimberley Lennon, who was accompanied by the Store Manager, Sarah McGrath.

At the adjudication hearing, the Respondent confirmed that the name of the Respondent furnished by the Complainant was incorrect and the correct name is Octavian Popa Limited T/A Salt Cave Paradise. The Respondent consented to the change of name. The correct name of the Respondent is used in the adjudication decision.

Background:

The Complainant lodged a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 that the Respondent has reduced her hours below her contracted hours and, as a result she has experienced an unauthorised deduction in her wages.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submits as follows:

The Complainant’s contract guarantees her a minimum of 24 hours work per week. Despite this, her hours were reduced below 24 hours on a number of occasions during the period from 18 September 2023 to 24 December 2023.

The Complainant submits that as a result of the reduction in her hours, there was a shortfall of €700 in her wages during the relevant period.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submits as follows:

Due to a downturn in its business, the Respondent had to reduce the working hours of all its staff. The working hours of the fulltime staff were reduced first. The Respondent needed to be fair to all staff, so it reduced some of the Complainant’s working hours.

The Respondent said the Complainant was only available for work at weekends despite her contract providing that she would work any hours that were required.

The Respondent exhibited a spreadsheet at the hearing which showed that the shortfall in the Complainant’s wages due to the reduction in her hours amounted to €847.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Law

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides as follows; -

“5. Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers

(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.”

I note that the Complainant’s contract provides that “the Employee’s normal working hours are variable, depending on business needs but not less than 24 hours/week”. There was no dispute between the parties that there were some weeks during which the Complainant was rostered for less than 24 hours. At the hearing, the Respondent accepted that this was in breach of the Complainant’s contract. The Respondent quantified the Complainant’s loss at €847.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and all evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Respondent has made an unauthorised deduction of €847 from the Complainant’s wages.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I declare that this complaint is well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €847.

Dated:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn

Key Words: 02/05/2024

Payment of Wages – well founded