PWD2426

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037897 (CA-00039637-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 on the 13 September 2023. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 March 2024.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Ms Tara Fennell (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00037897, dated 10 August 2023) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 13 September 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 20 March 2024.

The Complaint

The Complainant has been employed by Aer Lingus (‘the Respondent’) since 25 February 1995. She is a permanent Senior Cabin Crew Member. In March 2020, the Respondent’s business was greatly diminished by the Covid-19 pandemic. In order to avoid mass redundancies and/or unpaid lay-off of its staff, the Respondent implemented temporary reductions in pay and short-time working. The Complainant, along with her colleagues had a 50% pay cut imposed on them with effect from 30 March 2020. The Respondent engaged intensively with the trade unions that represent its staff thereafter including the Complainant’s trade union. However, no agreement was reached and the Respondent found it necessary to impose a further 30% pay cut to salaries across the board, including that of the Complainant.

The Complainant referred her complaint under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 7 September 2020. The period comprehended by the complaint is therefore 8 March 2020 to 7 September 2020. Her basic pay at the material time was €1108.71 gross per fortnight. The Complainant submits that her contract of employment does not make provision for short-time working or for unilateral reductions in pay. She further submits that the reductions imposed by the Respondent on her pay from March 2020 onwards (and to which she did not consent) amount, therefore, to a series of unlawful deductions from her pay within the meaning of the Act. She alleges that she received a total of 2 cent in pay from her employer in the period between 9 April 2020 and 27 August 2020.

The Respondent’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the material facts of the within appeal are on all fours with those that applied to the parties in a previous appeal determined by the Court (Jones v Aer Lingus PWD2248) and that, therefore, the Court should follow itself in this case. The Decision in Jones

Having decided that the Ms Jones’ complaint under the Act was well-founded, the Court proceeded to determine the issue of compensation it believed to be reasonable in the circumstances:

“It is clear and undisputed that the global health pandemic resulted in an unprecedented impact on the conduct of business and normal social and economic life in this jurisdiction and across the globe. Similarly, the impact of the pandemic was unprecedented in terms of its severe negative impact upon the business of the Respondent and upon the workers employed by the Respondent.

It is clear and undisputed that the Respondent took considerable steps to protect its business while avoiding involuntary redundancies. It is also clear and undisputed that the steps taken by the employer were applied evenly across the workforce and were, in the unprecedented circumstances which prevailed, acceptable to the vast majority of the entire workforce.

The Court therefore concludes that the amount of compensation which is reasonable in the combination of all of the circumstances present and giving rise to this complaint is nil.”

Decision

The Court finds that no material facts have been proven in this appeal that would permit it to distinguish it from Jones. That being the case, there is no compelling reason to justify the Court departing from the reasoning it adopted in Jones. The Court, therefore, finds that the Complainant’s claim to the effect that the various reductions imposed on her salary during the period comprehended by the within complaint is well-founded. However, having regard to the same factors as were identified by it in Jones, the Court in this case also finds that the amount of compensation payable to the Complainant is nil.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
29 April 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.