Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Gymnastics Instructor

A Sports Academy

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-00017470-001

16/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00017470-002

16/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00017470-003

16/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00017470-005

16/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00017470-006

16/02/2018

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a gymnastics instructor from 4th September 2017 until 5th February 2018. She is non-EEA national. Her agreed salary, as per her work permit was €576 weekly with agreed deductions for board and accommodation of €184.61 a week.

The Complainant submits that she was employed by the Respondent as a Gymnastics Instructor from the 2nd of September 2017 to the 5th of February 2018. Her agreed salary was €30,000 per year. She is a non-EEA citizen and, as such, required an Employment Permit to work legally in Ireland. She came to Ireland as the holder of a valid Employment Permit.

The Complainant submits that she lived in a two-bedroom apartment which, she believes, is owned by the Respondent. She was told that this apartment was for her and that €1500 per month would be deducted from her salary for rent. She was not given a rental contract and was not given anything in writing pertaining to these deductions from her pay.

After three months or so, the relationship between the Complainant and her employer deteriorated as he voiced dissatisfaction with her work. This culminated in the Respondent having an argument with some parents of the children that the Complainant taught (5th February 2018). After this argument the Complainant was told that she was no longer required and that she should leave the apartment immediately. Her employment was terminated on the 6th of February. The Respondent subsequently informed the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation that the Complainant was no longer in his employment and her Employment Permit was cancelled. The Complainant was not paid for her final month’s employment and the part of February that she worked.

The Citizen Information Service contacted the Respondent on behalf of the Complainant to try to reach an amicable conclusion to this dispute. Despite some encouraging signs that some of the money owed to the Complainant might be recouped, these negotiations broke down without agreement.

The Complainant submits that she gave up a job that she had had for twenty years to move to Ireland for this job. She also gave up her accommodation in her home country. She has been placed in very dire circumstances by the behaviour of her former employer.

The Complainant claims that money was deducted from her salary unlawfully for monthly rent payments. Had she any choice, the Complainant would have secured more affordable accommodation. She claims that the deduction from her pay was not made with any written notification. She has never had a separate lease agreement with the Respondent.

A €1500 deduction was made monthly from the Complainant’s salary in the months of September, October, November and December. This amounts to €6000.

The Respondent refutes and contests all claims made by the Complainant. The Respondent is a small recently established entity, member of the Gymnastics Ireland Association. The aim of the organisation is to provide high quality gymnastic training to children. The Respondent’s own children are training in the club; therefore, he and his spouse are fully involved in the training process. The organisation is not making any profit at present. The Respondent submits that in the beginning of 2017 the Complainant replied to the Respondent’s advertisement for position of a Gymnastics Coach. Her interview was successful and she was offered the position subject to a successful work permit application. The Respondent assisted the Complainant with her work permit. All terms of future employment were discussed and agreed with the Complainant in advance, she signed the work permit application containing some terms of her employment including salary, deductions and job title. When the permit arrived, the Respondent forwarded it to the Complainant. It is not true that the Complainant was brought from her home country without seeing her work permit as she would not be able to receive a visa and residence card without copy of the permit. The Respondent paid €1500 for work permit together with visa fees, plane tickets and €300 residence card fee. The terms of employment were sent to the Complainant in a language of her understanding in advance of the permit application and afterwards. One of the terms of the work permit is that a deduction of €184.61 per week will be made for board and accommodation. In a contract the Respondent specified that most likely she will be sharing accommodation. The Complainant never raised the issue regarding her terms of employment. The Complainant knew the exact address of her accommodation in advance of her arrival as it was produced to the Embassy to obtain the visa and at the airport when entering the State. The Respondent placed an advertisement on daft.ie in September 2017 for a 1 bedroom rent in order to get a single professional person to share with the Complainant. The Complainant would have been accommodated in a double bedroom with en-suite. Upon her arrival to Ireland the Complainant refused to share 2 bedroom apartment with anyone and the parties agreed that she will be paying €200 a week to the Respondent for the accommodation. The minimum market value is €1500 per month. The apartment is not owned by the Respondent. The Respondent paid extra over €500 per month rent to facilitate non-shared accommodation for the Complainant. Payslips were issued regularly and the Complainant never raised any queries.

Section 5. Regulation of certain deductions made and payments received by employers of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 stipulates as follows:

(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.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment, unless–

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term, and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(3)

(a) An employer shall not receive a payment from an employee in respect of a matter referred to in subsection (2) unless, if the payment were a deduction, it would comply with that subsection.

(b) Where an employer receives a payment in accordance with paragraph (a) he shall forthwith give a receipt for the payment to the employee.

(4) A term of a contract of employment or other agreement whereby goods or services are supplied to or provided for an employee by an employer in consideration of the making of a deduction by the employer from the wages of the employee or the making of a payment to the employer by the employee shall not be enforceable by the employer unless the supply or provision and the deduction or payment complies with subsection (2).

I note that the Employment Permit issued by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (as it was then) outlines the agreed deductions for board and accommodation as €184.61 a week. There was no evidence made available to me to demonstrate any other arrangements in place. I note that at the hearing the Respondent presented a two-page document titled “The agreement between the coach [name] and employer [name]”. The Complainant denies receiving the document exhibited by the Respondent. The Respondent has not provided evidence of when and how it was provided to the Complainant. This document was not signed or dated by either party and therefore I cannot consider it as a valid written agreement or contact of employment. Moreover, the Employment Permit stipulates as follows: “…this permit is issued on the basis that the named Foreign National is paid the remuneration specified on this Employment Permit. Section 23 of the Employment Permits Act 2006 (as amended) prohibits an employer from making any deduction from the Permit Holder’s remuneration or seeking to recover from a Permit Holder any charge, fee or expense relating to the application for the permit or its renewal and/or recruitment and travelling expenses in connection with taking up employment in the State.”

It was confirmed by both Parties at the hearing that a deduction of €1,000 a month was made by the Respondent in respect of accommodation provided to the Complainant. The Complainant’s representative admitted that an error was made in their submission claiming €1,500 a month deduction. The parties confirmed also that no board was provided.

I find that the Respondent obliged to provide board and accommodation to the Complainant and deduct €184.61 per week in respect of that. There was no specified separate amount for board and for accommodation. I find that not only the Respondent did not provide board as agreed but, in addition an increased sum of money was deducted from the Complainant wages in respect of accommodation. The Complainant was working for the Respondent for 22 weeks. Payslips presented at the hearing by the Respondent for the period 4th September 2017 to 3rd February 2018 show a total of €5,000 in deductions. The maximum agreed upon, as per the Employment Permit which stipulated also provision of meals was €4,061.42 (22 weeks x €184.61). On the basis that no board was provided I find that it was unacceptable that the Respondent would deduct the full amount as per permit. I find that an adequate deduction would equal to 50% of €184.61 (€2,030.71).

Taking all the evidence available to me into consideration I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well-founded.

On the basis of the evidence and my findings above I declare the complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant redress of €3,000.

The Complainant submits that she was not paid at all for January or February 2018. This amounts to €3000 for January and €600 for February. At the hearing the Complainant’s representative corrected the figures and sought a monthly pay of €2,500 for January and €550 for February.

The Respondent on a number of occasions offered the Complainant to come and collect her outstanding wages and any outstanding money. However, the Complainant refused to attend the employer or provide her new address. She also refused to pay outstanding bills, rent for the time she was occupying the apartment and refused to return keys. The Respondent suffered significant loss due to the Complainant’s resignation and behaviour:

Damage to club’s reputation and loss of memberships: ongoing; Airplane tickets: €715 SSE Airtricity: €130.68 Virgin Media cancellation: €200 Fob replacement: €60 GNIB card: €300 work permit fee, courier and translation fees: €1700 re-entry visa: €160 rent from 06/02-12/02

The Respondent did not dispute the claim and agreed that no payment was made to the Complainant for January and February. There is no evidence presented to demonstrate that there was any written agreement between the parties in relation to the deductions in respect of bills, airplane tickets and other expenses incurred. The Complainant started her employment of the 4th September and was paid monthly on the 4th of each month. She was paid up until the 3rd January. However, no payment was made to her in respect of the period from the 4th January 2018 to 5th February 2018. The parties confirmed that the Complainant is owed her monthly salary for the period from 4th January to 3rd February 2018 plus 2 days’ pay in February. I find that the Complainant’s monthly paid equals to approximately €2,500 gross and a daily pay equals to approximately €115.20 gross.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act in relation to remuneration is well-founded and the Respondent shall pay the complainant redress of €2,730.40.

The Complainant submits that she was not remunerated for leave that she took in December 2017, nor was she given payment in lieu of leave upon the termination of her contract of employment. The Complainant asserts that she worked for 23 weeks. Her weekly rate of pay was €600. She worked 24 hours per week on average. Her annual leave entitlement upon cessation of employment was 44.16 hours (23x24x8%). At an hourly rate of €25, this amounts to €1104.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant took unauthorised annual leave in December-January. When the Respondent found out that the Complainant was planning to go away to spend some holidays in her home country he said that it had been agreed that paid leave would be available in summer time only. It was also stated in written terms that annual leave to be taken in July-August, Therefore, the Complainant was not entitled to paid 2 weeks leave in December after only 3 months of employment. However, the Respondent tried his best to facilitate the Complainant and agreed to pay for her airplane tickets (return).

Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant has not received any annual leave entitlements. This complaint was presented to the WRC on 16th February 2018 and the Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 4th September 2017 to 5th February 2018, 22 weeks in total. However, she was on two weeks unpaid leave in December 2017. The Complainant was working 24 hours a week.

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 stipulates that:

19. Entitlement to annual leave

(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.

Therefore, the Complainant’s annual leave entitlement for the period of her employment would be 38.4 hours (20 weeks x 24 hrs x 8%). The Complainant’s weekly wage as per her Employment Permit was €576, therefore, she was paid €24 per hour.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977 in relation to cesser pay for untaken annual leave is well-founded.

I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €921.60 for the economic loss in respect of the annual leave, subject to any lawful deductions and compensation of €500.00 for breach of Section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

The Complainant submits that she was dismissed without adequate notice and seeks compensation under Section 6 of The Payment of Wages Act. €600 is claimed as payment in lieu of notice. The Complainant submits that the children she had taught would witness the Respondent being very rude to her. They would inform their parents about it and on the 5th February 2018 a number of parents went to the Respondent’s office to discuss the matter. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent called her to his office and informed her that the parents were not happy with her, which she and the parents denied. She claims that at that stage she was told that she is no longer required. She submits that she asked the Respondent “Do you mean I shouldn’t come back tomorrow?”. She was told to vacate the apartment. She confirmed that she received the email of 6th February in which the Respondent accepts her resignation but, as the email was in English she did not fully understand it. She also wanted to obtain advice from a solicitor. She subsequently contacted the Citizen Information Service on 23rd February.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not dismissed but resigned her position. The Respondent submits that the Complainant received a number of notifications via email from the Respondent regarding her style of teaching, requesting the Complainant to make amendments when working with children. Later on, the Respondent found out about major breach of ethics and club policy by the Complainant who discussed her employment terms with students’ parents. This caused not only stress to the Respondent but major damage to the reputation of the club and financial loss as some members decided to withdraw their membership. For some reason the Complainant suggested to a number of parents that they should leave the club and attend private classes or other clubs. A month prior to the Complainant’s resignation 5 parents withdrew children’s membership, which was very unusual. On 5th February 2018 a number of parents attempted to interrupt a lesson saying that they need to talk to the Respondent and that they will not come back until the Complainant is managing the club and the training goes under her supervision only. The Respondent was shocked and wanted to call the police but the matter had to be dealt with immediately. He stated that the Complainant is an employee and all managerial decisions, decisions about competitions and other important decision to be taken by the owners of the club. At that point the Complainant said that she is resigning and left with the group of parents. She never showed up for work and left the Respondent in a very difficult position as he had to seek an alternative arrangement in order to facilitate classes. The Respondent asserts that all training classes were cancelled the next day due to the Complainant’s departure without notice (in breach of her term of employment where each party is to give 1 month notice and in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Acts). The Respondent wrote to the Complainant asking to return keys and fob to the apartment. However, it was not done and the apartment was not vacant until 12th February, leaving without paying any rent or utility bills.

I note that this was an employment that ended acrimoniously. The dismissal is in dispute. The circumstances around the ending of the Complainant’s employment were not before this adjudication. There is no claim of unfair dismissal. What is at issue is the claim regarding monies the Complainant asserts are owed to her in respect of minimum notice. However, as set out in Halal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Limited v EAT [1990] ELR 49, where there had been a constructive dismissal, the question of minimum notice could not arise. Therefore, it is necessary to establish whether the dismissal has occurred.

Prior to the end of her employment, the Complainant was contacted by email by the Respondent and her training methods were questioned. The Respondent presented copies of emails of 19th December 2017, 29th January 2018 and 5th February 2018. There is a considerable divergence between the parties’ respective accounts of what happened on the 5th February 2018. The Complainant submits that the Respondent had an argument with some parents of the children the Complainant taught and after this argument the Complainant was told that she was no longer required, that she should leave the apartment immediately and her employment was terminated as of 6th February 2018. The Respondent, on the other hand submits that the Complainant resigned her position during the meeting on the 5th February 2018, in the presence of some parents. The Respondent presented at the hearing an email sent to the Complainant on 6th February stating “We regret to inform you that we have accepted you verbal termination of your employment notice with [the Respondent]. We understand that your employment shall be terminated on 06 of February 2018.” This email, unlike any other correspondence issued to the Complainant was in English. The Complainant claims that she did not fully understand the email but confirmed that she did not ask for translation.The Respondent submits that the Complainant did not turn up for work on the 6th February and the Respondent suffered financial loss as classes had to be cancelled until a new instructor was recruited. There was further evidence submitted post hearing by both Parties. As requested by the Adjudication Officer the Respondent supplied copies of two emails. Unfortunately, the emails do not clarify the matter as the Complainant in her email states (translation from Russian) “ because you did not give me an official warning of my dismissal in advance, after telling me this on February 5th, did not pay me my salary, and on February 6th demanded to release their housing, I inform you that I do not have the money to buy a ticket to return to Russia, and I, unfortunately, cannot fulfil your demand.”. The Respondent’s reply goes as follows “…unfortunately you forgot that it was not our Company but you gave us a warning on February 5 that you will not go to work on February 6. It was voiced with all in the presence of the leadership…”.

Post hearing the Complainant submitted additional documents she was not requested to deliver, namely email to the Respondent dated 7th February 2018, an unsigned, undated statement purportedly from one of the parents who witnessed the events of 5th February, a copy what appears to be an email from a parent who allegedly witnessed the events of the 5th February and a transcript of what appears to be a social media chat between the Complainant and Ms O of the Respondent. I accept that the email to the Respondent of 7th February 2018 was also submitted by the Respondent. However, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the remaining documents. Moreover, the individuals whose statements the Complainant now relies on were not present to give evidence at the hearing. The remaining records were not presented or referred to at any stage of the hearing and therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration.

Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced, I find that on the balance of probabilities the meeting of the morning of the 5th February 2017 occurred as outlined by the Complainant. I reach this finding for the following reasons. It was not in dispute that the Complainant was upset at the meeting of the 5th February 2017 and that there was a vociferous interchange between her, the Respondent and a number of parents. The Respondent noted that they “ganged up” against him. I note the Respondent claim that, having invested in the Employment Permit and visa process it made no sense for them to dismiss the Complainant and seek a new instructor. I note also that the Respondent formally corresponded with the Complainant (e.g. email of 19th December highlights that it should be treated as official/formal one) in relation to their concerns in respect of her performance. The Respondent, in his emails noted, inter alia, that they will be compelled to review their financial arrangements if the Complainant’s attitude towards trainings does not change (email of 29th January 2018 and 5th February 2018). Moreover, they noted that as an employee the Complainant is obliged to fulfil her duties and observe the rules of the workplace order and only if that’s the case the Respondent obliges to pay the Complainant’s full wage. There was no evidence adduced to show that the Complainant at any stage intended to leave or reconsider her arrangements with the Respondent. To the contrary, it was submitted at the hearing that the Complainant was in a vulnerable position and the dismissal has placed her in very dire circumstances.

·         For the sake of completeness, even if the Complainant’s version of events at the meeting of 5th February were a complete fabrication (which I do not say it was) and it was accepted that the Complainant resigned her position at that meeting, the Labour Court is clear in its decision Charles Shinkwin v Donna Millet (EED044) that there is a significant body of authority for the proposition that there are occasions on which an apparently unconditional and unambiguous resignation may be vitiated by the circumstances in which it is proffered. The Court held: ‘In Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Linehan [1992] IRLR 156, the following passage appears at paragraph 31:- “If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment, personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure (being jostled into a decision) and indeed the intellectual makeup of the individual may be relevant (see Barclay [1983] IRLR 313). These we refer to as “special circumstances”. Where special circumstances arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employers risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the “special circumstances” the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively. The Court went on to state: “In Martin v Yeoman Aggregates Ltd [1983] IRLR 48 the following finding of the EAT is recited in the headnote:-“It is a matter of plain common sense, vital to industrial relations, that either an employer or an employee, should be given an opportunity of recanting from words spoken in the heat of the moment. It could not be accepted, as argued by the appellant, that once clear and unambiguous words are used the contract irreversibly comes to an end so that second thoughts make no difference”. In her book Dismissal Law in Ireland, Dr Mary Redmond wrote as follows at paragraph [21.24]: -“When unambiguous words of resignation are used by an employee to an employer, and are so understood by the employer, generally it is safe to conclude that the employee has resigned. However, context is everything. A resignation should not be taken at face value where in the circumstances, there were heated exchanges or where the employee was unwell at the time. The intellectual make up of the employee may also be relevant.” Similar approach was taken by the EAT in Keane v Western Health Board (UD940/1988).

Therefore, I find that in circumstances as described by the parties it would be unreasonable to accept the Complainant’s resignation.

Taking the aforesaid in consideration I am satisfied that the Respondent dismissed the Complainant with immediate effect and did so without adhering to its obligations under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

In accordance with Section 4(2) d of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 I find that the Complainant was entitled to one week’s notice as she had over 13 weeks service at the time of dismissal. In accordance with Section 12(1) of the Act I direct that the Respondent pay the Complainant compensation of €576 amounting to one week’s pay.

The Complainant submits that she was not given written particulars of her terms and conditions of employment as required under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. She was also not furnished with a copy of her Employment Permit.

The Respondent submits that all terms of future terms of employment were discussed and agreed with the Complainant in advance, she signed work permit application, containing some terms of her employment including salary, deductions, job title. The terms of employment were sent to the Complainant in language of her understanding and discussed and agreed in advance of the work permit application and afterwards.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that:

“(1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars …… “.

(2) A statement shall be given to an employee under subsection (1) notwithstanding that the employee's employment ends before the end of the period within which the statement is required to be given.

(3) The particulars specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the said subsection (1) may be given to the employee in the form of a reference to provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements, governing those particulars which the employee has reasonable opportunities of reading during the course of the employee's employment or which are reasonably accessible to the employee in some other way.

(4) A statement furnished by an employer under subsection (1) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer.

(5) A copy of the said statement shall be retained by the employer during the period of the employee's employment and for a period of 1 year thereafter.

I note the Respondent assertion that the Complainant was made aware of certain terms of her employment when she signed her Employment Permit application. I note also that the Respondent submitted at the hearing a copy of unsigned and undated document titled: “The Agreement between the coach [named] and employer [named]”. The Complainant denies receiving the document.

I am of the view that the Respondent was in breach of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information), Act 1994 and that the Complainant should have been furnished with the written statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment.   The matter is of particular importance, in my opinion, due to the fact that the Complainant was susceptible to being placed in a vulnerable position. She moved from abroad to Ireland, having very little English and no knowledge of her entitlements under Irish employment rights legislation. Even though, some of the details of her engagement were outlined in the application for Employment Permit (which does not exempt the Respondent from his obligations under the Act) these were not adhered to by the Respondent.

Section 7(2)(d) of the Act states that an employer can be ordered “to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks' remuneration”.

Taking all of the circumstances of this case into consideration I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €2,304 (4 weeks remuneration).

Rent deductions, non-payment of wages, minimum notice, annual leave