ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011723
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Cleaner | A Respondent |
Complaint(s):
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-00015927-001 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-002 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00015927-004 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-006 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-007 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-009 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-010 | 21/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-011 | 21/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-012 | 26/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00015927-013 | 26/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant has lodged complaints against two respondents Mr. S (adj 11722) and Ms. D (adj 11723) in respect of the same matters. 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 claims which were not contained in the earlier form namely CA-00015927-010 and CA-00015927-011 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 and that 21st of November 2017 is the relevant date for the two additional claims CA-00015927-010 and CA-00015927-011. 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. 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 At a joint hearing of the claims both respondents denied being the complainant’s 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 Mr. S, 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. The named respondent 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. Accordingly, I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00015927-001 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-002 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00015927-004 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-006 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-007 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-009 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-010 | 21/11/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-011 | 21/11/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00015927-012 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00015927-013 | 26/09/2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that Ms. D was not the complainants employer for the purpose of these claims and that the claims against her are not well founded and must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
This claim is not upheld. |
Dated: 27/03/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|