Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Administrator

A Car Business

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00021449-001

29/08/2018

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

CA-00021449-002

29/08/2018

The Complainant has presented her case as an employee of the company and wife of the owner. There was a duplication in the complaint submitted on 29 August 2018 and the case proceeded on CA -00021449-001 alone.

The Complainant was accompanied by her son, a fellow employee of the business and the Respondent was accompanied by his brother and Accountant in the business.

This case came for hearing against a backdrop of considerable conflict in a long-standing family business. I had made a previous decision in the case of the complainant’s son during 2018.

The Complainant is pursuing a statement of her terms of employment.

The Complainant is married to the owner of the business, but not a Company Director. She submitted that she had worked for the company continuously since 2 April 1973 and had not had the benefit of a written statement of her terms of employment. She submitted that she worked a 40-hour week in return for a nett payment of € 280 per week.

The Complainant submitted that the Company was subject to a WRC Inspection during 2018 following which staff were given contracts and requested to return them without 24 hours. When she sought a contract, she outlined that the Accountant (her brother in law) had informed her that she didn’t exist. She outlined an extensive disappointment in relation to how she was treated. The Complainant also exhibited a PRSI record which did not reflect her actual service at the business. She confirmed that she was now in receipt of an old age pension from the state.

The Complainant went on to outline her integral role at the business and her years of commitment. She stated that she loved the business. She had held a responsible role in the business for which she had not been recognised.

She sought a written statement of her terms of employment as she had no security in case of illness. She submitted that she was “on call “for the business every day and she was frustrated by the ongoing uncertainty. The Complainant stated that she was now 66 years of age.

The Respondent outlined that the Complainant was placed on the books of the business for tax purposes in her spousal capacity. She did not receive a weekly wage and did not sustain a regular pattern of work at the business. He stated that she received an annual payment from the business.

The Respondent outlined that he was prepared to offer work to the complainant but she was not the Administrator for the business, which was currently a shared role. He gave some examples of when the complainant had refused to undertake tasks asked of her.

The Respondent submitted details of the WRC Inspectorate visit and denied mis treating the complainant by “lock out”.

The Respondent also outlined a high level of frustration with the complainant’s ad hoc approach to work. He stated that she seldom maintained more than a 1-day week.

The Respondent went on to explain the PRSI classification exhibited by the complainant.

I have carefully considered the facts of this case. I have done this by listening to the parties and considering the evidence adduced.

This is essentially the story of an inter family conflict in its primacy. I am satisfied that the complainant is employed at the company, albeit without a traceable agreed function .

The Complainant told me that she had hiring responsibility for staff over the years. The Respondent submits that the complainant is employed notionally and not operationally. This is a situation which needs discussion at the company base, ideally with an external advisor. The level of conflict exhibited by the parties was unprofessional and if left unaddressed has the clear potential to jeopardise a reportedly thriving business.

It is not fair or reasonable to expect the WRC to adjudicate on what is essentially a family dispute. There is no provision for me to undertake this task in accordance with Section 7 of the Act and I explained this to the parties at the hearing. I also explained my limitations under Section 41( 6) and (8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and asked for submissions.

Given, the complainants undisputed proximity to the business over an extended period and her knowledge of hiring staff. I asked the complainant why she had delayed in submitting her complaint to the WRC? I cannot accept her response as being a lack of knowledge of the law. The Respondent submitted that the complaint was out of time .

I have found that this complaint is significantly out of time.

I find the complaint to be not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I have found the complaint to be not well founded. It is significantly out of time .

Terms of Employment