A worker who began operating from home on doctor’s orders when Covid-19 hit but was ordered to turn in his laptop, phone and company car when he complained about a pay cut has been awarded over €41,000 for unfair dismissal.
John Waters told his bosses at Dublin-based heating, ventilation and air conditioning company Alpha Mechanical Services that he was “disgusted” about a €800 deduction imposed in April 2020 and said: “I’d be better off switching off my phone and laptop.”
The company maintained Mr Waters resigned his employment with this email – with a director telling him in response to turn in his phone, laptop and company car.
But in a decision published on Tuesday, the Workplace Relations Commission ruled the pay deductions were unlawful and upheld Mr Waters’ complaints against the company under the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Payment of Wages Act.
Romantasy, QuitTok and other words from a dystopia-coded year
Have Ireland’s data centre builders shot themselves in the foot through their own greed?
The old order of globalisation may be collapsing – and bringing Germany with it
Wonderwallets: the cost of everything in 2024, from Oasis tickets to Leinster House bike shelter
The company had denied the claims, maintaining that Mr Waters had resigned and was not sacked.
Immune-suppressant medication
Mr Waters told the WRC that, when the Covid-19 pandemic reached Ireland, he asked his GP whether he should continue to take an immune-suppressant medication for a medical condition. In April 2020, his doctor advised him to keep taking the medication, but to avoid being in groups of people, and issued him with a letter stating that he should work from home, Mr Waters said.
It was his position that “nearly all” of his work could be done remotely – the exception being site inspections once a week per site, he said.
The following week, Mr Waters opened his payslip to discover his pay consisted of the €350 Covid-19 payment and a further sum €250 – an underpayment of €803.85 on his normal gross weekly salary of €1,403.85, he said. Mr Waters said his employer did not liaise or engage with him about this “unilateral reduction in his salary” and that he only discovered it upon reading his payslip.
In an email exchange with his company directors, Alan Kelly and Vincent Geraghty, copies of which were submitted as evidence to the WRC, he wrote that he believed the pay packet he was getting was equivalent to being paid for just seven hours’ work in the week. Sean Costello Solicitors, for Mr Waters, submitted that their client was only “expressing his upset” at the company’s conduct and it could “in no way be construed as amounting to a resignation”.
‘Stew on it’
The same day, Mr Geraghty wrote to Mr Waters stating that if the complainant wanted to “stew on it” then he should let his boss know. Mr Kelly also wrote back in the email chain: “John, I’ll go one further! Drop your laptop, phone and jeep to the office by Friday morning.”
The company argued the reduction to Mr Waters’ normal salary was “a means of survival for the business” – adding that the complainant had not been “singled out”.
In his decision, adjudicating officer Jim Dolan wrote that the company “could have and should have” held a meeting with Mr Waters to try to resolve any differences between them.
Mr Dolan noted the submission of Mr Waters’ barrister, which stated that Alpha Mechanical Services had “failed to comply with its own disciplinary or dismissal procedure” and “afforded the complainant no process whatsoever”.
“It is impossible to disagree with this statement,” the adjudicating officer wrote, though he said Mr Waters had made a mistake by not appealing the decision.
Mr Dolan upheld the unfair dismissal complaint and awarded Mr Waters €41,793.23 in compensation.
The adjudicator also found the company had made two unlawful deductions to Mr Waters’ pay while he was working from home and upheld his claims under the Payment of Wages Act. He made an order for a further €1,421.55, bringing the total award to €43,214.84.
A third complaint of disability-based discrimination under the Employment Equality Act was rejected as being not well-founded.
