ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015095
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A contractor | A restaurant |
Representatives | self | Solicitor |
Complaint(s):
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-00019629-001 | 06/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent in the capacity of a consultant on a fee of €200 per week. The relationship commenced on 06/04/2018 and ended on 01/06/2018. The Complainant worked from her home in Barcelona. The claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 06/06/2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant informed the hearing that she commenced working for the Respondent on 06/04/2018. She was never registered as an employee of the Company. The Complainant was engaged in solving any difficulties the restaurant had in relation to hygiene and quality standards as prescribed by the Food Authority of Ireland. The Complainant also had responsibility for sourcing suppliers and negotiating prices with potential suppliers. She was advising on Quality Control and HACCP standards. The Complainant alleges she never received the agreed salary. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The representative of the Respondent clearly stated that the Complainant was never an employee of the Respondent company and was engaged in a capacity of advising the Respondent. The Complainant was looking after all her own taxation affairs and this strengthens the argument that she was not an employee. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent was not one of employer and employee. The Contract was a Contract for Service rather than a Contract of Service. Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 the complaint must fail. The relationship was a commercial one and not an employee and employer relationship. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Complaint fails. |
Dated: September 11th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Payment of Wages. |