EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Nazareth House PW38-PW51/2014
- Appellant
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Noreen Coyle - Respondent 1 – r-136605-pw-13/SR – award - €994.29
Sharon McCarron - Respondent 2 – r-136617-pw-13/SR – award - €1,773.65
Brigid Rose Higgins - Respondent 3 – r-136613-pw-13/SR – award - €1,557.41
Evelyn Coyle - Respondent 4 – r-136604-pw-13/SR – award - €1,688.90
Martin McLaughlin - Respondent 5 – r-136620-pw-13/SR – award - €1,944.80
Irene McLaughlin - Respondent 6 – r-136598-pw-13/SR – award - €1,294.80
Evyette Kelly - Respondent 7 – r-136614-pw-13/SR – award - €676.45
Ira Lauere - Respondent 8 – r-136624-pw-13/SR – award - €1,362.97
Jacqueline Boyle - Respondent 9 – r-136603-pw-13/SR – award - €1,935.83
Christine O'Connor - Respondent 10 – r-136622-pw-13/SR – award - €1,957.56
Mary Moore - Respondent 11 – r-136602-pw-13/SR – award - €786.66
John Dalzell - Respondent 12 – r-136607-pw-13/SR – award - €1,706.90
Theresa Harkin - Respondent 13 – r-136609-pw-13/SR – award - €1,240.85
Ann Lynch - Respondent 14 – r-136616-pw-13/SR – award - €815.41
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms F. Crawford B.L.
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Ms. A. Moore
heard this appeal at Letterkenny on 17th July 2014
Representation:
Appellant(s) : Mr. Terry MacNamara, IBEC, 3rd Floor, Pier One, Quay Street,
Donegal Town, Co Donegal
Respondent(s) : Ms. Fidelma Carron, SIPTU, 8th Floor, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
These cases came before the Tribunal as a result of appeals by the Appellant (employer) against a series of decision of the Rights Commissioner under both the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in the cases of the 14 Respondents (employees).
This order should be read in conjunction with PW796-812/2012 as they were heard in tandem.
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background:
The appellant company submits that they are not in breach of the rights and entitlements under Section 5 of the Act. This being the failure to receive written consent from the respondents (employees) agreeing to a deduction from their wages.
All parties indicated that five witnesses would give sworn evidence on behalf of all the respondents named in these appeals.
The appellant company is a nursing home and the named respondents are employed in various non-nursing positions.
On the 17th May 2012 the CEO, the General Manager and the HR Consultant held a general meeting with staff. Not all of the named respondents were present. Staff were informed that occupancy had dropped with a significant drop due to an outbreak of influenza in which 9 residents died. The home was operating below 75% occupancy since January 2012. Due to financial constraints the appellant company would implement a 15% pay cut. A number of staff, including the named respondents, voiced their objection at the meeting and later objected in writing.
A second staff meeting was held on the 30th May 2012 and staff present were informed management were implementing a 13.5% pay cut which would impact wages from the 8th June 2012. One of the named respondents lodged a formal grievance on the 21st June 2012. A grievance meeting was held on the 27th June 2012. Correspondence then crossed between management and the named respondent’s union representative.
Two claims on behalf of the named respondents were lodged with the Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Appellant’s Position:
The CEO gave evidence on behalf on the appellant company. He gave the Tribunal a breakdown of the financial situation. These details had been shown at the staff meeting but no copies were given to staff to peruse at a later time. He explained that a reduction in staffing levels was not an option at the time as staff level requirements were stipulated by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQUA) and had to be adhered to. The only solution was a pay cut in order to keep the nursing home open. Staff were informed at the meeting that these cuts would be reconsidered in the future.
In October 2013 wages were increased by 3.5%.
The witness told the Tribunal that no alternatives to the pay cut was suggested by staff. When put to him he agreed that no written consent had been given by any staff for the pay cut.
Respondent’s Position:
The respondents’ Union Official and four of the named respondents gave evidence. All the respondents were shocked at the announcement of the pay cuts having had no prior knowledge of the reason and content of the first staff meeting on the 17th May 2012. Objections to the pay cut had been voiced at the meeting and were later formally objected to some of the one to one meetings held.
No agreement to the pay cut was given in writing.
Determination:
The Tribunal have carefully considered the sworn evidence and submissions adduced in this complex matter.
The Tribunal finds the appellant was in breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal affirms the Rights Commissioners Decisions references:
r-136605-pw-13/SR – award - €994.29, r-136617-pw-13/SR – award - €1,773.65,
r-136613-pw-13/SR – award - €1,557.41, r-136604-pw-13/SR – award - €1,688.90,
r-136620-pw-13/SR – award - €1,944.80, r-136598-pw-13/SR – award - €1,294.80,
r-136614-pw-13/SR – award - €676.45, r-136624-pw-13/SR – award - €1,362.97,
r-136603-pw-13/SR – award - €1,935.83, r-136622-pw-13/SR – award - €1,957.56,
r-136602-pw-13/SR – award - €786.66, r-136607-pw-13/SR – award - €1,706.90,
r-136609-pw-13/SR – award - €1,240.85, r-136616-pw-13/SR – award - €815.41
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)