Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pauline  McMorrow

Leitrim Animal Welfare Centre Ltd.

Representatives

Fidelma Carron SIPTU, Workers Rights Centre

William Wall Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00064363-001

27/06/2024

The claimant has been employed by the respondent since March 2004 .She has submitted that when she received her wages in January 2024  , they were reduced by approx.. €8.00 , that this continued for 3 weeks , following which her wages were reduced by €60-€80 per week.She raised this matter with her manager and she responded that she would get her pay the following week.A meeting ensued at which the claimant  was advised that the manager could not afford to pay her .According to the claimant , there was no discussion or agreement on the reduction of her pay by 15%.The claimant was seeking to have her normal wages restored.The claimant estimated that she was owed €1,500 .The respondent disputed the claimant’s commencement date and  wholly denied the claim.

The union submitted that the claimant commenced employment in March 2004 as a Kennel Worker and was promoted to Kennel Supervisor on the 12th.Sep. 2012.It was submitted that it was agreed that in recognition of her new role and additional responsibilities , the claimant would be paid the minimum wage plus 15%.It was submitted that this was captured in a letter dated the 13th.Sept. 2012.

It was submitted that in Jan. 2016 , the min wage was increased to €9.15 per hour but the respondent did not increase the claimant’s wages in line with the agreement.The matter was referred to the WRC and the AO found as follows :

……”Accordingly , I recommend that the parties , SIPTU and the Respondent and/or their Representative enter  into discussions with a view to identifying ways and means by which the underlying principle of the complainant’s entitlement to an hourly rate of pay of the minimum wage + 15%  be protected while accepting   the constraints placed on the respondent by the precarious financial position of the respondent and it should be recognised that this may mean temporary deferments or adjustments of wages due on foot of the letter of the 13th.Sept. 2012”  ……..ref ADJ-0003669.”

It was submitted that following a direct discussion between the parties an agreement was reached on the calculation of the monies owed to  the complainant  to be paid on a phased basis and confirmation of her rate of pay as the minimum wage +15%, €414.93 pw effective from the 24th.March 2017.A copy of the agreement was submitted into evidence .

It was submitted that the respondent had honoured the agreement until the minimum wage was increased to €12.70 per hour effective from the 1st.Jan. 2024.When the claimant received her pay on the 5th.Jan 2024 , there was a deduction of €8.19.The claimant raised the matter with her manager Ms.G and she was advised it would be sorted the following week. Despite this assurance , it was advanced that the deductions continued and when the complainant returned from sick leave the week commencing the 5th.Feb. 2024 , the deduction increased to €62.79pw.

Following a meeting with the manager on the 28th.Feb. 2024 , the claimant received an email from the manager advising that the company was not in a position to make any pay increase above the statutory increases in the minimum wage.The union sought to resolve the matter but management refused to engage.

The union invoked Section 5 of the Act and submitted that :

“An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee unless –

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

It was submitted that in the instant case , the employer started making deductions to the claimant’s wages without any consultation or agreement. No consent was sought and it was submitted that this constituted a breach of the Act.

It was submitted that it had been agreed that when the claimant was promoted to Kennel Supervisor in Sept. 2012 , the rate for the position was the minimum wage +15%.This had been implemented by the respondent until Jan. 2016 when the respondent refused to honour the agreement.It was submitted that this was reaffirmed by the Adjudicator in his recommendation of March 2017 where he referenced ..” there is considerable merit in the complaint and that based on the letter of Sept. 13 2012 , the complainant was entitled to be paid the at the hourly rate of €10.52 per hour - €9.15 +15% with effect from the 1st.Jan. 2016. The claimant and Director Ms.C signed an agreement on the 23rd.March 2017 stating “ Pauline to be placed on new weekly wage of €414.96 ( minimum wage +15%) per week with effect from March 24. 2017”.

The union submitted a list of the deductions made from the 5th.Jan. 2024.The union requested that the respondent fully compensate the claimant for her financial losses as a result of the deduction from wages.

It was submitted that there appeared to be a misunderstanding on the respondent’s part in relation to the matter at issue – it was set out on the agenda as “ Pay increase for P.McMorrow “ when what was being sought was the restoration of the claimant’s normal rate of pay.

The respondent submitted that no agreement to pay the claimant the minimum wage “ and an uplift of 15%” ever existed.

It was submitted that the  complainant  was unable to produce proof of the agreement she was relying upon.

It was submitted that no agreement was ever made between the parties and in such circumstances no claim can arise.

It was submitted that the agreement of the 23rd.March 2017 related to an underpayment of wages in 2016 and at the start of 2017  and that this did not give effect to a standard rate of pay within a contract of employment – it was submitted that this gave effect to addressing a shortfall in pay and no more.

It was advanced that the respondent did not breach the Act.

It was submitted that no agreement existed and the claimant was never paid the amounts  alleged.

The respondent requested that the complaint be dismissed.

At the hearing , the respondent’s representative undertook to establish if the letter of the 13th.September 2012 could be located and furnished to the WRC and the claimant.No further communication was received from the representative who no longer works for the agency representing the respondent.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective positions of the parties.Having considered the entirety of the evidence , and having regard to the direct  evidence of the claimant plus the supporting documentation furnished by the union  of payslips , the agreement of the 23rd.March 2017  and the fact that the letter of the 13th.Sept. 2012 – which recorded the agreement on payment of the min wage +15% was referenced by the Adjudicator who conducted   the March 2017 hearing, I find the submissions of the claimant to be more credible than that of the respondent – who denied the existence of any such agreement.The respondent did not dispute the claimant’s contention that she did not consent to the deductions effected since January 2024.Accordingly , I am upholding the complaint and find the employer was in breach of the Act.

I require the respondent to pay the claimant €1,500 compensation .