Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Billy Wall OPATSI

Self

Act

Complaint/Dispute 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-00031735-001

22/10/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015

CA-00031735-002

22/10/2019

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

CA-00031735-003

22/10/2019

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

CA-00031735-004

22/10/2019

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

CA-00031735-005

22/10/2019

It is herein alleged that the respondent failed or neglected to provide the complainant, with a statement outlining the main and core terms and conditions of employment, a pension with death in service and a sick pay scheme that complies with the order, Annual Leave payments as they were treated as self employment workers and that wages are unpaid.

Background.

The complainant was employed on various sites as instructed by the respondent and was offered work at a rate of €160 & €130 per day per day for an 8 hour day. The role was tiling and other related responsibilities such as cleaning and such.

When the work was offered to the complainant, it was only offered to him as self-employed workers. They were incorrectly designated as independent contractors for a number of reasons one being, that it prohibits the respondent in complying with the Sectoral Employment Order S.I. 455 of 2017 and other employment rights.

The complainant was due wages for which the respondent failed or neglected to pay. After requesting the wages, a second time without success the complainants decided not to attend work any further.

From the date the employment ended and for a number of weeks thereafter, the complainant requested his wages without success. They referred the matter to the union and on the 8th August. The Union made contact with the respondent demanding the wages owed to the complainant.

The respondent met with the Union on a number of occasions in   August and September in an effort to resolve matters. The Union informed the respondent of their obligations under a sectoral employment order for the construction sector for the class type or group of workers to whom the order relates.

Following the meeting with the respondent they continued to refuse to pay the wages owed to the complainants.

Following from that the matter was referred to the commission for hearing on the 22nd October last

Preliminary Issue.

Precarious forms of employment have increased in years and this is very evident in the construction sector in the form of self employment or false self employment or as the media refers to it Bogus Self Employment.

The government in January 2018 released a report titled “The use of intermediary-type structures and self-employment arrangements: Implications for Social Insurance and Tax Revenues January, 2018”.

The purpose of this report is to identify and estimate any potential loss of tax and Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) resulting from intermediate-type structures and certain self-employment arrangements. Where the use of self employment is discovered, the report shows in monetary terms the loss to the state.

A Construction sub group was formed to examine issues in the sector. The report received submissions from interested parties and one issue evident was that.

“in many cases, trades people do not have a choice with regard to whether they are engaged as an employee or self-employed worker and are being forced to take up self-employment rather than being engaged as an employee. The plastering and block-laying trades are specifically highlighted in this regard”.

We would further refer the commission the report from the Comptroller and Auditor General on the “Accounts of the Public Services 2017” where Mr. McCarthy has identified the issue of False self-employment in the construction sector as yielding a return of €60.2million as a result of joint investigations by a joint departmental investigation team. The report refers at 20.37

“In 2017, the construction sector featured prominently in joint investigation activity as well as Revenue’s own compliance interventions. As a result of that activity, the construction sector yielded €60.2 million in 2017 for Revenue. Payroll taxes were part of this. In 2017, Revenue led 855 unannounced visits to construction sites that included joint investigations with the Department and the WRC. Outcomes were interviews with 5,017 contractors, sub-contractors and employees. 484 sub-contractors were subsequently reclassified as employees. Also, 749 individuals were subsequently registered as new employees.

The report also makes the point at 20.13 that “employers are responsible for ensuring that their workers are correctly classified for PRSI when they commence employment” The report also identifies the tests applicable when considering as to the true employment relationship and mentions the code of practice agreed by the hidden economy monitoring group set up in 2001.

To establish as to whether the true employment relationship is that of a “contract of service” or a “contract for services” one must look at the facts of the day to day relationship that existed during the employment. The category a worker falls into depends on what they actually do, the way they do it and the terms and conditions under which they are engaged, whether written, verbal or implied. It is not simply a matter of a principal contractor or a subcontractor calling the engagement 'employment' or 'self-employment' to suit themselves.

The Superior Courts have identified a number of tests that can be used to identify the true nature of the employment. The in-business test, the control test, the integration test are just some titles put on the tests that can go to distinguish the employment relationship however no one test can be applied as to determine the relationship as the relationship needs to be looked at as a whole.

Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173 [Appendix 1] applied the in business test importing it from United States v Silke (1946) 331 US 704.[Appendix 2.] The case involved market researchers whereby it was argued by the company that the workers could not be considered as employees due to the lack of direct control on assigned tasks and that they were not integrated into the business.

Cooke J rejected the suggestion that this was the fundamental characteristic of an employee:

“[T]he fundamental test to be applied is this: Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account? If the answer to that question is yes, then the contract is a contract for services. If the answer is no, then the contract is a contract of service. No exhaustive list has been compiled and perhaps no exhaustive list can be compiled of the considerations which are relevant in determining that question, nor can strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases. The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors which may be of importance are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task." There have been a number of Superior Court cases which have given direction which goes to establish a workers employment status.”

For the most part, the Supreme Court has had the benefit of reviewing the expressed terms of contracts as to the intended employment relationship. However, words alone do not go to distinguish the actual employment relationship.

In this case the complainants, craft workers and general operatives with the exception of the complainant, were asked to carry out work personally on building sites for the respondent. These sites were clients of the respondent.

The respondent, a company in business of its own account. It takes on financial risk in carrying out contracts. If they employ the wrong people and they carry out work that is not acceptable to their clients, they may have to employ further workers to complete the work. Their contract is commercial in law.

The complainant was offered work by the respondent. He advised that the daily rate of pay was €160 for craft work and €130 per day for general operative work as self-employed workers

Whilst on the site working for the respondent, he carried out his duties in accordance with the respondent and the main contractor’s instructions. He signed into the site using the respondent’s name.

The complainant could not profit from introducing, sound management structures, they could not substitute their work as they performed it personally, they were paid a predetermined wage, they were under instruction from the respondent, they were not in business on their own account but rather the respondents, they did not supply materials for the job, they were not exposed to financial risk and they are entitled to extra pay for overtime. They are entitled to a pension, sick pay and a death in service benefit all coming from the employment as the Sectoral Employment order applies to all workers of the class type or group to whom the order applies, in this case craft workers.

Case Law in relation to the matter has been set out comprehensively in the complainant’s submissions.

Claims

CA-00031735-001

It is alleged that breach of the provisions of the S.3-(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, wherein it is alleged that the respondent contravened the relevant section in circumstances that he either failed or neglected to provide the complainant with a written statement outlining the main particulars of the terms of his employment, within the time provided for in the Act that is to say, not later than two months after the commencement of his employment with the respondent, and within which time the statement is required to be given within law

The purpose of this Act is to provide for the implementation of Directive No. 91/533/EEC of 14 October, 1991 of the Council of the European Communities on an Employer's Obligation to Inform Employees of the Conditions Applicable to the Contract or Employment Relationship, to amend the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, and to provide for related matters and as such it is a Community Right enjoyed by the complainant, from which there can be no derogation.

Section 3; written statement of terms of employment

3.—(1) 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, continues………….

Section 3(1) Terms of Employment (Additional Information) Order 1998 (S.I. No 49 of 1998

In relation to an employee who enters into a contract of employment after the commencement of this Order, the employee's employer shall, within two months after the employee's commencement of employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing particulars of the times and duration of the rest periods and breaks referred to in sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act that are being allowed to the employee and of any other terms and conditions relating to those periods and breaks

CA-00031735-005 ( Terms)

Moreover, the complainants are entitled to a statement of the core terms and conditions of employment within five days of commencing employment. Section three of the Terms and Conditions of Employment (Information) Act 1994 Sec (F10 [ (1A) ) as amended by Section 7 of the Employment (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 2018, enacted on the 4th March 2019 by statutory Instrument S.I. 69 of 2019, provides that

“ an employer shall, not later than 5 days 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, that is to say:

(a)          the full names of the employer and the employee;

(b)          the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act 2014 );

(c)          in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires;

(d)          the rate or method of calculation of the employee’s remuneration and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 ;

(e)          the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work—

(i)            per normal working day, and

(ii)           per normal working week.”,

There are a number of requirements under S.I. 455 of 2019 for the construction sector that requires the respondent to comply with namely a rate of pay. For the duration of the employment the complainants worked varied hours. In some instances, they worked up to 12 hours per day without any payment for unsocial hours.

Unions Arguments

1.                  Any derogation from the prescribed time frame for the production of such statement is a breach of the complainants’ community rights.

2.            The compensation payable must reflect the gravity of the infringement and act as a disincentive against future infractions.

Claim: CA-00031735-002

The complainants are entitled to be provided with a Pension with death in service provision and sick pay because of their employment. The respondent failed or neglected to provide same to any of the complainants as he had designated them to be self-employed for the purposes of paying tax and also to circumvent the workers’ right to other employment rights.

The Sectoral employment order provides minimum terms and condition to include the above as provided for at the appendix 1 to the order. As the workers are of the class type or group to whom the order applies, necessitates the respondent to comply with the order.

Claim: CA-00031735-003

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working time Act 1997 provides that;

19.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as” annual leave’’) equal to—

a)       4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

b)      one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

c)       8%. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a     maximum of 4 working weeks):

The complainant has a difficulty in that their hours were not recorded correctly or at anytime, as they were paid as self-employed. The respondent is required under section 25 (1) of the Act of 1997 to keep and maintain records in accordance with the section;

“An employer shall keep, at the premises or place where his or her employee works or, if the employee works at two or more premises or places, the premises or place from which the activities that the employee is employed to carry on are principally directed or controlled, such records, in such form, if any, as may be prescribed, as will show whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with in relation to the employee and those records shall be retained by the employer for at least 3 years from the date of their making”

Claim: CA-00031735-004.

The respondent failed or neglected to pay wages to the complainants in the amount of €1,446.00.

The Union had met with the respondent in efforts to resolve the matter and at no stage had the respondent disagreed that wages claimed were not owed. The respondent continued to refuse to pay the wages owed on the basis that they allege the complainant had not carried out the work to necessitate the wages, in other words the complainants allegedly had not done the work sufficient   to claim a days pay.

Conclusion.

The complainant contends that they are workers to whom a Sectoral Employment Order relates by the work they carry out and where such orders are in place. The Respondent/employer which for the purposes of the Order must be viewed as their employer and must employ these workers as employees in order to comply with the Sectoral Employment Order.

The Sectoral Employment Order governing the Construction Sector has application to all workers of the particular class type or group to whom the order applies. These workers are classed as craft workers and General Operatives as the work they carry out tiling and those duties associated with the role of a general operative. The order does not require these workers to hold qualifications, it merely requires them to be craft workers and general operatives and this affords according to what work they are engaged with.

An employer working in the construction sector as a requirement of law, is required to provide a pension scheme for his workers. The pension scheme must be an occupational pension scheme, whereby it has a provision for death in service benefit, it provides for transferability, provides for all causes of death to comply with the death in service element of the order, he or she cannot circumvent those provisions by merely designating those workers as self-employed workers. In the same sense, a worker who is genuinely self - employed must comply with the law if he is a worker to whom the Order applies.

As provided for in the above stated case, Building and Allied Trades Union & Anor v. Labour Court [2005] IEHC 109 (15 April 2005) the term worker is wide enough to cover self-employed workers. All the law requires is that the workers carrying out that work are doing so as workers of a particular class type or group.

The legislation supporting Sectoral employment orders requires that all employers and worker of the particular class type or group to whom the order applies, and providing that those workers and employers are working in the sector to which the order applies, must comply with the order. In support of that position, Section 16 (2)(e) requires that the sectoral employment order shall be binding on all workers and employers in the economic sector concerned.

The complainant is seeking a decision that he is a worker for the purposes of the Sectoral Employment Order SI 455 of 2017 Construction Sector. That their employer in this instance the respondent, failed or neglected to comply with the relevant sections of the order and with the relevant sections of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 whereby every employer within the sector concerned must comply with the order once craft workers are employed by him in his undertaking.

In so doing, the respondent to comply with a Sectoral Employment order must treat his workers as employees to comply fully with the pension and sick pay provisions contained therein. The pension referred to under the order is an Occupational pension scheme for which an employer and worker must contribute to. In order for both parties to comply with the order requires the employer to treat the complainant as a worker .

In accordance with section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015, declare that the complaint is well founded and in further consideration of the complaint require the employer to comply with the provision in respect of which the complaint concerned relates or, require the employer to pay to the workers compensation of such amount as you consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 104 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the worker’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

The complainant, having worked for the respondent from various dates as listed at appendix 1 and having worked an amount of hours during the employment we seek 8% of the hours worked and we further seek one day for payment of the last Monday in October.

For the above reasons we would In accordance with S. 7-(2) d of the Act, we would ask you to find the case well founded and order the respondent to pay the complainant an amount of compensation which is just and equitable in all the circumstances, and in this case to award the maximum award of four weeks remuneration, being cognisant of the decision of the ECJ in Von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, so that the decision will reflect the gravity of the infringement and act as a real deterrent against future infractions of Community Rights.

The complainant is at a loss of wages of €1,400 as a consequence of the employment. We would ask that you find the case well founded and order the respondent to pay to the complainants the wages owed in accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991

The respondent alleges that the complainant’s complaint as misconceived.

The complainant was a self-employed person. The agreement between the complainant and the respondent was that the respondent would contract the complainant on a daily basis in relation to work he had for him. The respondent would drive the complainant to the various jobs and provide all of the equipment and tools necessary to carry out the job. It was not possible for the complainant to bring someone with him to assist in the work if necessary. However, it was open to the complainant to refuse to do any particular job without further explanation. It was also possible for the complainant to take on any other work should you wish to do so.

The respondent could not, even if he wanted to, discipline the complainant as he was not an employee.

The complainant would invoice the respondent at the end of each week in order to get paid.   PRSI deductions reflect that of a self- employed person. .

Before I can embark on assessing the various claims that are before me, I must first establish whether the complainant was working under a contract for services or a contract of services i.e. as an employee or a self-employed person.

It is settled law that the question of whether a contract is one of services or for services is dependent on the particular facts, rather than a straightforward application of a clear test. However, it is submitted that there is one critical question that the courts always turn to, namely, whether the individual is in business on his or her own account and has an opportunity to make a profit or gain by the manner in which the work is executed.   In Market Investigations v Minister for Social Security   Cooke J stated:

“the fundamental test to be applied is this; if the person has engaged himself to perform these services performing them as a person in business on his own account’

If the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then the contract is a contract for service. If the answer is ‘no’ then the contract is a contract of service. It is submitted by the respondent that at all times the Complainant was in business on his own account.

In Autoclenz Limited v Belcher and Ors   the Court focused heavily on the test to establish whether a contract of service exists set out by McKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete (SE) Limited v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance   where he stated;

“I must now consider what is meant by a contract of service.   A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled.

(a)          The servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master.

(b)          He agrees, expressly or implicitly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other’s control in a sufficient degree to make that other master.

(c)           The other provisions of the contract are consistent with it being a contract of service”.

McKenna J further states

Condition (c) is sometimes called an “enterprise test” and it focuses on the typical characteristics of an entrepreneur ‘that is a person who is in business on his own account’. Per Cooke J in Market Investigations:

“factors which may be of importance are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether or how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task”.

The Supreme Court in Autoclenz added to those propositions the following:-

i.             That there must be a irreducible minimum of obligation on each side to create a contract of service

ii.            That a genuine right of substitution will negate an obligation to perform work personally and is inconsistent with employee status; and

iii.        If a contractual right, as for example the right to substitute exits, it does not matter that it is not used.

In the case of O’Coindealbhain v Mooney , Blayney J commented that the power of dismissal, while inherent in the master servant relationship, could also equally be found in a contract for services.   The case related to a contract that Mr Delaney had entered into with the Department of Social Welfare to act as a branch manager of a labour exchange. In this case, Blayney J stated;

“The second test to be applied “is whether the respondent is in business on his own account.” In my opinion he is. I have no doubt that he is running a business, the nature of the business being to provide a particular service for the Minister. His profit is the amount by which his remuneration exceeds his expenses; The lower he can keep his expenses the greater the profit”.

In the seminal case of Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Limited v Minister for Social Welfare Keane J upheld the adjudication of the social welfare appeals officer who was “entirely correct in holding that he should not confine his consideration to what was contained in the written contract but should have regard to all the circumstances of {the demonstrator’s} employment”

Keane J, at page 49, cited with the approval of Cooke J in the of Market Investigations case, ”that the fundamental test to be applied is this:

‘is the person who has engaged himself to perform these services, performing them as a person in business on his own account?…The most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although it can no longer be regarded as a sole determining factor; and that factors which may be of importance are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risk he takes, what degree of responsibility for investment and management he has, and whether and how he has an opportunity of profiting from sound management in the performance of his task’.    

Keane J also cites the Irish case of Graham v Minister for Industry and Commerce that the Supreme Court “…had also made it clear that the essential test was whether the person alleged to be a servant” was in fact working for himself or for another person.

Keane J, at page 50, goes on to say:

“the degree of control exercised over how the work is to be performed, although a factor to be taken into account is not decisive. The inference that the person is engaged in business on his or her own account can be more readily drawn where he or she provides the necessary premises or equipment or some other form of investment, where he or she employs others to assist in the business and where the profit which he or she derives from the business is dependent on the efficiency with which it is conducted by him or her”.

As to the right of the respondent to control and direct his operations, it has frequently been emphasised in the authorities that, while the degree of control exercised by the other party is always a factor to be taken into account, it has long since ceased to be regarded as the only factor to be taken into account.”

Stringfellow Restaurants v Quashie   the individual’s remuneration came from customers of the restaurant, not from the putative employer, and she was treated (by the employer and by herself) as self-employed for tax purposes. The Court of Appeal (Elias LJ) made the point that:

The Employment Tribunal’s conclusion [that the complainant there was not an employee] was strongly reinforced by the fact that the terms of the contract involved the dancer accepting that she was self employed, and she conducted her affairs on that basis, paying her own tax. In addition, and again consistently with that classification, she did not receive sick pay or holiday pay. It is trite law that the parties cannot by agreement fix the status of their relationship: that is an objective matter to be determined by an assessment of all the relevant facts. But it is legitimate for a court to have regard to the way in which the parties have chosen to categorise the relationship, and in a case where the position is uncertain, it can be decisive, as Lord Denning recognised in Massey v Crown Life Insurance [1978] 2 All ER 576,578. To similar effect is the following observations of Lord Justice Ralph Gibson in Calder v H Kitson Vickers Ltd [1988] ICR 232, 251:

“the fact that the parties honestly intend that between themselves the contract should be a contract for services and not a contract of service is not conclusive, but it is a relevant fact, and…it may afford strong evidence that that is their real relationship.”

It follows in my judgment, that the fact the parties here intended that the dancer should have self employed status reinforces the conclusion of the employment judge in this case.

On the basis that the complainant was operating under a contract for services and therefore as a self employed person I make the following findings:

The complainant in this case was clearly not in business on his own account. He did not bear any financial risk. He cannot make a profit or a loss. He was provided with all of the equipment necessary to carry out the role. He could not bring someone to assist him or to substitute himself with someone else. He was instructed where to go and what to do when there. He was brought to and from the different locations daily. When he arrived at the location he had to sign in using the respondent’s name. All of that suggests that he was working under a contract of service. I note that the respondent states that the complainant was employed as a self-employed person. There is no contract to that effect. I find, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing that the complainant was not fully informed at the material time that he would be employed on a contract for services basis. It clearly suited the respondent not to have to pay annual leave, PRSI (employee) contributions etc. Taking all of the circumstances into consideration I find that the complainant was an employee. Accordingly, I do have jurisdiction to hear and determine the within claims.

CA 00031735-001 and 005 (Terms)

I am satisfied based on the evidence adduced that the respondent was in breach of his obligations defined by the Act in that the complainant was never furnished with a written statement setting out even the most basic terms of his employment. I am awarding the complainant €3,200.00 (Based on a salary of €800 per week)

CA 00031735 -002 Industrial Relations)

I recommend that the respondent accept that the complainant was an employee and as such is entitled to all the benefits that come with being an employee.

CA 00031735 -003 (Organisation of Working Time Act)

25.—(1) An employer shall keep, at the premises or place where his or her employee works or, if the employee works at two or more premises or places, the premises or place from which the activities that the employee is employed to carry on are principally directed or controlled, such records, in such form, if any, as may be prescribed, as will show whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with in relation to the employee and those records shall be retained by the employer for at least 3 years from the date of their making.

(3)      An employer who, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

(4)    Without prejudice to subsection (3), where an employer fails to keep records under subsection (1) in respect of his or her compliance with a particular provision of this Act in relation to an employee, the onus of proving, in proceedings before a rights commissioner or the Labour Court, that the said provision was complied with in relation to the employee shall lie on the employer.

The complainant argued that he has a difficulty in relation to this portion of his claim. He did not keep a record of his hours worked and the respondent did not keep any records as he states the complainant was self -employed. Whilst there is a legal obligation on the respondent to keep records there is also an onus on the complainant to set out the factual basis upon which his claim is based. When he does so, then the respondent can open his records to refute the complainant’s claim. In his submission the complainant states that he is entitled to 8% of the hours work plus one day for the October bank holiday weekend. The respondent did not produce any evidence to refute the complainant’s claim.

I find that the complainant is entitled €160.00 for the October bank holiday Monday and to €895.87 calculated as follows:

14 weeks X 39 hrs p/w = 546 hours

8% of 546hrs = 43.68

20.51 p/h x 43.68hrs = €895.87

The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant € 895.87 plus € 160.00 totalling € 1055.87

CA 00031735 -004 (Payment of Wages)

The complainant states that he sought the assistance of his Union in relation to wages that were due and owing to him. The Union attempted on several occasions to engage with the respondent in that regard. Their attempts were unsuccessful. The complainant’s uncontested evidence is that he is owed €1,446.00.

The complainant is well founded. I award the complainant € 1,446.00

CA 00031735 -004 The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €1,446.00

CA 00031735 -003 The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €1,055.87

CA 00031735 -001 & 005 The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €3,200.00

I recommend that the respondent accept that the complainant was an employee and as such is entitled to all the benefits that come being an employee.