ADJ-00020280

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Housekeeper/Childminder

A Householder

Representatives

  Self-Represented assisted by Husband as a lay Representative.

 Did not appear.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00026734-001

03/03/2019

The issues in contention concern a Housekeeper and her Employer.

The Complainant commenced employment on the 28^th January 2019 and finished on the 27^th February 2019. Initially things went well but by the 27^th February strains had emerged regarding payment dates/times and other work-related issues. She decided to leave and informed the main Householder (Mr.X) of this on the morning of the 27^th February. An issue had also arisen that day over the correct operation of a Tumble Dryer and some designer Jeans.

A verbal confrontation followed, and the Complainant alleged she was left in a state of severe shock. Issue then arose over alleged outstanding wage payments. On leaving the house, in a state of severe trauma, on the 27^th February she went to Donnybrook Garda Station to make a formal complaint against the main Householder (Mr.X) in regard to his alleged abusive tone and aggressive physical gestures to her.  It was bullying of the worst kind and amounted to outright victimisation and abusive behaviour of the most egregious nature.

Her husband called to the House on the 1^st March 2019 in an attempt to meet Mr.X but was refused entry and sent away.

Extensive copy Text Messages and written correspondence between the parties were provided in evidence. Oral evidence regarding the abortive meeting of the 1^st March was given by the Complainant’s husband.

The Respondent did not attend.

However, Mr.X (the main Householder) submitted a detailed E mail dated the 20^th March 2019 refuting most of the Complainant’s assertions. In particular all allegations regarding non-payment of wages were denied. It was pointed out the Complainant had proved difficult in regarding to providing Tax and Bank Account details. She had insisted in being paid in cash. After one month it was clear that the working relationship was deteriorating. The quality of her work was poor, she was always down cast and a negative influence around the children. The final straw was the Jeans issues and the Tumble dryer.

 it was the Respondent’s intention to end the working relationship on the Friday of the last week. The Complainant pre-empted this by leaving on Wednesday.

The Respondent absolutely refuted any allegations and asserted that he had over paid the Complainant at the end to put the matter behind him.

He offered to provide witnesses to substantiate his case.

3:1         The Law involved

This case was brought under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 as a Section 13 (2) “Trade Dispute

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) ( a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

 3:2        Consideration of the Evidence presented.

On a procedural note I was happy that the Respondent had been properly notified of the Hearing.

From listening to the uncontested oral evidence of the Complainant it appeared to me that matters centred on the exchanges that took  place between Mr. X and the Complainant on the 27^th February 2019 and by extension on the 1^st March with the Complainant’s husband.

Allowing for the absence of the Respondent and relying on his written e mail of the 20^th March 2019 the conflict of evidence was extraordinary.

It is customary to give evidential precedence to a Party that actually turns up for a Hearing.

However, in this matter, following questioning of the Complainant, I was not convinced that this case readily fitted into the normal definition of a Trade Dispute particularly in view of the very short employment service.

Notwithstanding this observation I also came to the view that there was much in this case that would be best considered by other relevant Legislation, with greater investigative powers, than the Industrial Relations Act,1969.

This point was largely acknowledged by the Complainant’s Representative.

Accordingly, having considered all the evidence both oral and written, I am Recommending that this complaint be seen as premature and set aside on that basis.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Recommendation /Please refer to Section Three above for detailed reasoning.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00026734-001

Complaint is premature.

I recommend that it is set aside on this basis.