Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Cleaner

A Respondent

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00015926-001

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-002

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-004

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-006

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-007

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-009

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-010

21/11/2017

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

CA-00015926-011

21/11/2017

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

CA-00015926-012

26/09/2017

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

CA-00015926-013

26/09/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00015926-001

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.     I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-001 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April, 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria.   The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D’s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).   I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.  

The complainant submits that

Pursuant to Section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 she requested a statement of her average hourly rate of pay on 4th of September 2017.   The respondent failed to provide same.

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order   to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself. The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

Section 24 of the Act deals with disputes about entitlement to minimum hourly rate of pay. It stipulates:

“(1) For the purposes of this section, a dispute between an employee and his or her employer as to the employee's entitlements under this Act exists where the employee and his or her employer cannot agree on the appropriate entitlement of the employee to pay in accordance with this Act resulting in an alleged underpayment to the employee.

(2) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee's entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015—

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information, and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the [adjudication officer] may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be”

Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act makes it mandatory for an employee to request of their employer a statement of their average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period. An adjudication officer is explicitly prevented from hearing a complaint if the employee has not sought this statement.

Other issues in respect of the non-payment of wages are dealt with under a separate complaint in respect of the payment of wages.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had on 4th of September 2017 made a request to the respondents for a written statement of her average hourly rate of pay.   The complainant advised the hearing that the respondent failed to provide her with such statement. The complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 26th of September 2017 just 22 days after she had requested the statement from the respondent.  I note that a respondent in receipt of a request for such a statement has 4 weeks to reply to this request before it can be considered to have breached Section 24.   The complainant in this case submitted her complaint to the WRC 22 days after requesting the statement from the respondent and before allowing them the required 4 weeks to respond. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint.  

I am satisfied that this complaint cannot succeed and is not upheld.

I am satisfied that this complaint cannot succeed and is not upheld.

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

CA-00015926-002

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.     I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-002 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September, 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus, the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria. The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).   I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.  

The complainant submits that she did not receive a Sunday Premium payment.

The respondent submits that the complainant did not work Sundays.

Section 14 of the Act provides that an employee who is required to work on a Sunday shall be compensated for this by their employer. The complainant told the hearing that she did not receive a Sunday premium for working on Sundays. The complainant when questioned stated that she did not travel to work in the van with Ms. D on Sundays but that she remained in the respondent’s house. The complainant told the hearing that she was expected to help the respondent’s partner Ms. D on Sundays with chores around the house where the complainant lodged with the respondent and his partner Ms. D. The complainant at the hearing conceded that she could have stayed in her room all day on Sunday as no one told her she had to do work on Sunday.     Witness for the respondent Ms. D told the hearing that she herself did not go to work on Sundays and that the complainant did not work on Sundays.   The complainant at the hearing stated that she helped Ms. D around the house where she lived on Sundays but that she was not asked or instructed to do so and conceded that she could have stayed in her room or gone out if she had so wished.   Accordingly, I am satisfied that the complaint in respect of a failure to pay the complainant a Sunday premium fails and is not upheld.

I am satisfied that the complaint in respect of a failure to pay the complainant a Sunday premium fails and is not upheld.

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

CA-00015926-004

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.     The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.   I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-004 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus, the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria.   The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).     I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.

The complainant submits that

She did not receive any wages for work she carried out as a cleaner apart from €200 on the day her employment ceased.

The complainant was not an employee of the respondent and went to work with Ms. D employee and partner of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for cleaning job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D and she was coming to Ireland on the understanding that Ms. D was to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland.   It was agreed that the complainant would work with Ms. D as a cleaner. The complainant stated that Ms. D had told her that she would have to work with her as a cleaner for one year in order to obtain references before she could get clients of her own.   The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had told her that she could earn about €180 per month for cleaning houses. The complainant stated that she thought this was very little as she had previously worked in the UK, so she knew she should be earning more.     The complainant told the hearing that she asked Ms. D why the amount was so little, and Ms. D replied that this was due to the fact that she would be staying in her house and paying no bills.     The complainant told the hearing that she had then stated that she would have to think about it and talk it over with her family.  The complainant advised the hearing that she had then received a call from Ms. D a day or so later telling her that Ms. D had bought her a plane ticket to Ireland and had also arranged for Ms. Ds daughter to bring the complainant to the airport in Bulgaria.   The complainant stated that she hadn’t yet made up her mind to go to Ireland but that she didn’t want to seem ungrateful after Ms. D had made the arrangements and bought her the plane ticket and so she went along with it.

The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the respondent Mr. S.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to his house where he lived with Ms. D and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Mr. S’s partner Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

The complainant told the hearing that this happened every day of the week from Monday to Saturday. The complainant told the hearing that she did not travel to work on Sundays and that she stayed in the house on Sundays but that she helped Ms. D around her own house on Sundays.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Ms. D told the hearing that she had been contacted by a friend in Bulgaria and asked if she could help the complainant to find a job in Ireland.   Ms. D stated that she had agreed to help the complainant to look for work in Ireland and that she had bought her a plane ticket and agreed to give her a place to stay ‘as a favour’.   Ms. D told the hearing that the complainant did come to work with her on a few occasions in order to learn about the work she was doing in the hopes of getting her own customers in the future.     Ms. D stated that the complainant needed experience and references before she could find a job as a cleaner herself.

Ms. D denies that the complainant went to work with her every day during the relevant period and states that she only went on a few occasions maybe 5 or 6 times in total. Ms. D stated that the complainant was not employed by her and so did not receive payment. Ms. D stated that she provided the complainant with a place to stay and provided her with all of her meals.

The complainant told the hearing that she did not know any one and did not have any money and did not have very good English, so she could not go anywhere or do anything other than remain in Mr. S’s house and go to work with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she eventually left following an argument between Ms. D and another resident of the house Ms. K who was also from Bulgaria. The complainant stated that Ms. D had told Ms. K to leave the house on the night of the 5th of April 2017 following an argument and that the complainant had left with her. The complainant stated that Mr. S had then driven them to a hotel where he paid for them to stay overnight and that he had given her €200 as wages when she left.

The complainant lodged her complaint against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D (adj 00011723). on the 26th of September 2017. Thus the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017.   The complainant who was represented did not advance any reason for the delay in her lodging of the complaint or provide any reason or evidence of reasonable cause which would warrant the granting of an extension of the time limit from 6 months.

The complainant provided a schedule to the hearing which indicated that her hours of work for the nine-day period (excluding Sunday) from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April 2017 was 108 hours of work.

The complainant submits that she worked 11.5 hours per day on Monday, Wednesday Thursday and Saturday and that she worked 13 hours per day on Tuesday and Friday.

Thus, for the relevant nine-day period she worked two Mondays two Tuesdays two Wednesdays one Thursday one Friday and one Saturday. This gives a total of 108 hours of work.

I am satisfied that the complainant was employed by the respondent and that there was a verbal contract in place which was agreed between the complainant and Ms. D who is employed by Mr. S. I am satisfied that the respondent through his employee Ms. D facilitated the complainant to come to Ireland and provided her with bed and board and transport to work as part of her employment.     I am also satisfied that the respondent is entitled to deduct €54 per week or €7.73 per day from the complainant’s wages to pay for such lodgings.

Thus, the amount owed to the complainant for the relevant period amounts to 108 hours x 9.25 per hour is €999 in wages which the Complainant should have been paid during the relevant period less (€7.73*9 days) €69.57 for board and lodgings which leaves an amount owed of €929.43 in unpaid wages.  

The complainant told the hearing that on the night she left she asked the respondent for the money she had earned.   She told the hearing that Mr. S then gave her €200.   The respondent Mr. S advised the hearing that he gave the complainant this €200 in order that she could buy a plane ticket to go back to Bulgaria.   I am satisfied that this €200 was given to the complainant in part payment of wages owed to her, however having calculated the wages due to the complainant to be €929.43 for the relevant period and given that the respondent gave her €200 on 5th of April 2017 I am satisfied that she is entitled to the remainder of her wages for the relevant period which leaves €729.43 owing to the complainant in unpaid wages.

I find the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the complainant outstanding wages for the period of €729.43 in addition to compensation to the amount of €500.

I find the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the complainant her outstanding wages for the period of €729.43 43 in addition to compensation to the amount of €500.

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

CA-00015926-006

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.     I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-006 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus, the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria.   The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.     The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought   to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).     I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.

The complainant submits that she did not receive any holiday pay or Annual leave entitlements during her employment with the respondent

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

I am satisfied that the relevant period for this complaint dates from the 27th of March to 5th of April 2017.

Section 19 of the Act provides that an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave. The complainant advised the hearing that she did not receive annual leave or compensation for annual leave during her employment with the respondent. The complainant submits that she was employed by the respondent from 25th of February 2017 to 5th of April 2017.

The complainant submits that she is entitled to compensation equivalent to 8% of the total hours worked.   The complainant submits that she worked 11.5 hours per day on Monday, Wednesday Thursday and Saturday and that she worked 13 hours per day on Tuesday and Friday.

Thus, during her employment with respondent she would have accrued 32.6 hours of annual leave. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to 32.6 hours annual leave for the relevant period at a rate of €9.25 which amounts to €301.55.

Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant €301.55 in respect of her accrued annual leave entitlement as well as compensation of €200.

Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant €301.55 in respect of her annual leave entitlement for the relevant period plus compensation of €200.

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

CA-00015926-007

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.     I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-007 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus, the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April, 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.     She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria. The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.     The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought   to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).     I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.

The complainant submits

That she did not receive her public holiday entitlements for the relevant period specifically in relation to her appropriate public holiday entitlement on 17thMarch 2017.

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

Section 21 of the Act provides that an employee shall be entitled to certain entitlements in respect of public holidays. I am satisfied that the relevant period for the purpose of this complaint dates from the 27th of March to 5th of April 2017.     I am satisfied that there is no entitlement to public holidays for the relevant period as no public holidays fell during the relevant period.

I am satisfied that the complaint in respect of a failure to pay the complainant for public holidays during the relevant period fails and is not upheld

I am satisfied that the complaint in respect of a failure to pay the complainant for public holidays during the relevant period fails and is not upheld

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

CA-00015926-009

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.     The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.   I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-009 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus, the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April, 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria. The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).     I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.

The complainant submits that she did not receive her break entitlements during the working day

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

Section 12 of the Act provides that an employee shall not be required to work more than 4 hours 30 minutes without a break of at least 15 minutes and shall not work more for more than 6 hours without a 30-minute break. This 15-minute break can be included in the 30-minute break but would have to start no later than 4 hours and 30 minutes after the commencement of work.

The complainant submits that she did not receive her proper rest breaks during the working day. She advised the hearing that she travelled from house to house in the van with Ms. D from 7.30 in the morning to 7 pm at night and until 8.30 or 9pm on Tuesdays and Fridays and that she did not receive any breaks. The complainant told the hearing that the only opportunity she had to eat during the day was when she got to eat a sandwich in the back of the van while being transported from one job to the next by Ms. D.   The complainant stated that she did sometimes get 10 or 15 minutes to have a cup of coffee when she arrived at a house to be cleaned. The respondent did not produce any records of breaks and could not provide any evidence that the complainant was provided with breaks in accordance with her entitlements under the Act.

Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded.   I am satisfied that the relevant period during which the rest breaks were not provided covers a period of 9 days during which the complainant worked 108 hours. I order the respondent to pay the complainant €300 in respect of the failure to provide her with proper rest breaks specified under the Act.

Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded. I am satisfied that the relevant period during which the rest breaks were not provided covers a period of 9 days during which the complainant worked 108 hours. I order the respondent to pay the complainant €300 in respect of the failure to provide her with proper rest breaks specified under the Act.

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

CA-00015926-010

21/11/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.      I am satisfied that the 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

Both parties attended the hearing of the claims and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.    

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria.   The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).   I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.  

The complainant submits that she did not receive her daily rest period

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

Section 11 of the Act provides that an employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.

The complainant submits that she did not receive her daily rest period as she was required to work from 7.30 am and did not get home until 7 pm on Mondays Wednesdays Thursdays and Saturdays and she was required to work later on Tuesdays and Fridays and did not get home until 8.30 or 9 pm on these days.

This claim was not included in the first complaint form dated 26th of September 2017 and was only included in the second claim forms submitted on 21st of November 2017.   Accordingly, the relevant period for this complaint dates from 22nd of May 2017 to 21st of November 2017.   The complainant advised the hearing that she left the respondent’s employment on the 5th of April 2017.    As the relevant period for this complaint dates back six months from the date of submission of the claim i.e. from 22nd of May 2017 allegations in respect of the time period prior to 22nd of May 2017 are out of time.

As this claim was submitted outside of the six-month time limit it cannot succeed.   Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded, and the complaint fails.

As this claim was submitted outside of the six-month time limit it cannot succeed.   Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded, and the complaint fails.

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

CA-00015926-011

21/11/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.      I am satisfied that the 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

Both parties attended the hearing of the claims and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.    

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.     She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria. The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.     The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought   to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).     I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.

The complainant submits that she did not receive her weekly rest period

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

Section 13 of the Act provides an entitlement to a weekly rest period.

This claim was not included in the first complaint form dated 26th of September 2017 and was only included in the second claim forms submitted on 21st of November 2017. Accordingly, the relevant period for this complaint dates from 22nd of May 2017 to 21st of November 2017.   The complainant advised the hearing that she left the respondents employment on the 5th of April 2017.   As the relevant period for this complaint dates back six months from the date of submission of the claim i.e. from 22nd of May 2017 allegations in respect of the time period prior to 22nd of May 2017 are out of time.

As this claim was submitted outside of the six-month time limit it cannot succeed.   Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded, and the complaint fails.

As this claim was submitted outside of the six-month time limit it cannot succeed.   Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded and the complaint fails.

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

CA-00015926-012

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC. The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.     I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-012 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April, 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had made contact with Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland. The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria.   The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.  

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.   The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).   I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.  

The complainant submits that she worked more than an average of 48 hours in each 7-day period

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

Section 15 of the Act provides that

.—(1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period ”) that does not exceed-

(a) 4 months, or

(b) 6 months—

(i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or

The complainant submits that she worked more than 48 hours in a seven-day period.   I note that Section 15 stipulates a reference period of 4 months over which the average weekly hours must not exceed 48 hours. I note that the complainant in this case submits that she was employed by the respondent from 25th of February to 5th of April 2017 i.e. for a period of 5 weeks. Thus, it is clear that the stipulation in respect of average weekly hours worked in a 4 month reference period cannot be met in this case as the complainant was only employed for 5 weeks. Accordingly, I cannot make a finding in respect of an allegation that the complainant, in each period of 7 days, worked more than an average of 48 hours, calculated over a reference period of four months.

I am satisfied that this complaint cannot succeed and is not upheld.

I am satisfied that this complaint cannot succeed and is not upheld.

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

CA-00015926-013

26/09/2017

The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S and Ms. D.   The first complaint form naming both respondents was lodged on 26th of September 2017 and contained eight claims.   Duplicate complaint forms naming each respondent separately were then lodged on 21st of November 2017 following contact from the WRC.   The duplicate complaints received on 21st of November 2017 replaced the earlier complaint form received on 26th of September 2017 and contained all of the eight claims submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contained two additional complaints which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011 in respect of daily and weekly rest periods which were lodged for the first time on 21st of November 2017.   I am satisfied that the complaint forms submitted on 21st of November are duplicates of the earlier complaint form submitted on 26th of September 2017 but also contain two additional complaints.   I am also satisfied that the 26th of September 2017 is the relevant date for receipt of the eight complaints referred in both forms including the within claim CA-00015926-013 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015926-010 and CA-00015926-011.

At the hearing of the claims I clarified that the complaints were first received on 26th of September 2017.   Both parties attended the hearing and were granted an opportunity to present their cases.   Neither party raised any issue in respect of time limits either before or during the hearing.     I am satisfied that the reckonable time period for the purpose of these complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 26th of September 2017 i.e. the 6-month period preceding the complaint.     The complainant submits that her employment with the respondent finished on 5th of April 2017.   Thus, the reckonable period covered by the complaints dates from 27th of March 2017 to 5th of April 2017.

Claims have been submitted against two named respondents Mr. S and Ms. D. At the hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainants employer.   It is submitted that the complainant who is Bulgarian came to Ireland in February 2017.     Her flight ticket was paid for by Ms. D partner of the within respondent Mr. S and that she came to Ireland on the understanding that Mr. S and Ms. D were to give her a job as a cleaner cleaning houses.

The complainant told the hearing that she had wished to leave Bulgaria to live and work in Ireland.   She stated that she had contacted Ms. D through a friend in Bulgaria who told her that Ms. D would be able to help her to find work. She told the hearing that she spoke to Ms. D on the phone before travelling to Ireland and Ms. D made arrangements for her to come to Ireland.   The complainant told the hearing that Ms. D had booked and paid for her flight to Ireland and that Ms. Ds daughter had even driven her to the airport in Bulgaria. The complainant told the hearing that she arrived in Ireland on 24th of February 2017 and that she was collected at the airport by the named respondent Mr. S and partner of Ms. D.

The complainant told the hearing that Mr. S drove her to the house where he and Ms. D lived and where she was provided with bed and board.     The complainant told the hearing that the next day she was brought to work cleaning houses with Ms. D. The complainant stated that she was brought to work in a van and was then driven to a number of different houses which she was instructed to clean.

Ms. D told the hearing that she did not give the complainant a job and was not her employer. Ms. D stated that she herself was employed by Mr. S to clean houses. Mr. S at the hearing agreed that he was Ms. D s employer but claimed that this was only for tax purposes. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. S is the employer for the purpose of these complaints (adj 11722 & adj 11723).   I am also satisfied that Ms. D was employed by Mr. S as a supervisor and agent of Mr. S and that he is vicariously liable for her actions.

The complainant submits that she did not receive a statement in writing containing the terms of her employment under the Terms of Employment Information Act 1994

The complainant was not an employee and went to work with Ms. D employee of Mr. S in order to learn the work and to gain experience so that she may look for a job herself.

The complainant was provided with bed and board by Mr. S and Ms. D in their home where she was permitted to stay as a favour.

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

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 of the terms of the employee’s employment, ……

The complainant submits that she arrived in Ireland on the 24th of February 2017 and that she worked for the respondent from the 25th of February until the 5th of April 2017.

This period does not amount to 2 months and so the respondent cannot be considered to have breached the Act in circumstances where the complainant left her employment before the expiry of the 2 month period.

Accordingly I find this complainant to be not well founded and the complaint fails.

Accordingly, I find this complainant to be not well founded and the complaint fails.