CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997 AND SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00030805
issued on 03/05/2022 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030805
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ray Gaughran | Mr. Tom Mannion c/o Ashford Court Hotel |
Representatives | Self represented | Self represented |
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-00031702-001 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-002 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00031702-007 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-009 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00031702-010 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-011 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012 | CA-00031702-012 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-013 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-014 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-016 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-017 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-018 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00031702-019 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00031702-020 | 18/10/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/11/2021
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
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed that Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required, and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Parties were also advised that this hearing was being held in public and that the names of the parties would be published. Witnesses gave evidence under oath or affirmation.
Background:
The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The named respondent denies all knowledge of the complainant or any employment relationship with him. An alternative respondent name was provided by the complainant on 21 September 2021. This person Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel was notified of the complaint and of the hearing date and attended the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he was employed by the named respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19 . He later submitted that he was employed by Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The named respondent denies all knowledge of the complainant or any employment relationship with him. An alternative respondent name was provided by the complainant on 21 September 2021. This person Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel was notified of the complaint and of the hearing date and attended the hearing. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00031702-001 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim relates to an allegation that the complainant did not receive the National minimum rate of pay. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-002 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant did not receive compensation for working on a Sunday. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00031702-007 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant did not receive appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of employment. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-009 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive the minimum rate of pay set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any an Employment Regulation Order which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint, he was unaware of its meaning or content. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00031702-010 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive the minimum rate of pay set out in a Sectoral Employment Order (SEO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-011 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlement. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012 | CA-00031702-012 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing stated that he was not involved in Civil Aviation and that he had submitted this claim following advice from Citizens information. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-013 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim relates to non-receipt of public holiday entitlements. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-014 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant was not compensated for the loss of his public holiday entitlement upon leaving. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-016 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant had not been granted his annual leave entitlements in respect of the first 13 weeks of carers leave. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-017 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive his paid holiday annual leave entitlements as set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any an Employment Regulation Order which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint, he was unaware of its meaning or content. He stated that it may have been ticked in error. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-018 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive his public holiday entitlements set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any an Employment Regulation Order which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint, he was unaware of its meaning or content. He stated that it may have been ticked in error. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00031702-019 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim relates to an allegation of non-receipt of a statement in writing of terms of employment. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. M was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00031702-020 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing advised that he was not making a claim in respect of a person involved in mobile road transport activities and that this claim may have been ticked in error. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Dated: 03rd May 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030805
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ray Gaughran | Livingsocial Europe Ltd |
Representatives | Self represented | Self represented |
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-00031702-001 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-002 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00031702-007 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-009 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00031702-010 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-011 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012 | CA-00031702-012 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-013 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-014 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-016 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-017 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-018 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00031702-019 | 18/10/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00031702-020 | 18/10/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/11/2021
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
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed that Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required, and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Parties were also advised that this hearing was being held in public and that the names of the parties would be published. Witnesses gave evidence under oath or affirmation.
Background:
The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The named respondent denies all knowledge of the complainant or any employment relationship with him. An alternative respondent name was provided by the complainant on 21 September 2021. This person Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel was notified of the complaint and of the hearing date and attended the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he was employed by the named respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19 . He later submitted that he was employed by Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The named respondent denies all knowledge of the complainant or any employment relationship with him. An alternative respondent name was provided by the complainant on 21 September 2021. This person Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel was notified of the complaint and of the hearing date and attended the hearing. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00031702-001 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim relates to an allegation that the complainant did not receive the National minimum rate of pay. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-002 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant did not receive compensation for working on a Sunday. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00031702-007 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant did not receive appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of employment. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-009 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive the minimum rate of pay set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any an Employment Regulation Order which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint, he was unaware of its meaning or content. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00031702-010 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive the minimum rate of pay set out in a Sectoral Employment Order (SEO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-011 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlement. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012 | CA-00031702-012 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing stated that he was not involved in Civil Aviation and that he had submitted this claim following advice from Citizens information. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-013 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim relates to non-receipt of public holiday entitlements. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-014 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim states that the complainant was not compensated for the loss of his public holiday entitlement upon leaving. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031702-016 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant had not been granted his annual leave entitlements in respect of the first 13 weeks of carers leave. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. Mannion was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-017 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive his paid holiday annual leave entitlements as set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any an Employment Regulation Order which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint, he was unaware of its meaning or content. He stated that it may have been ticked in error. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00031702-018 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The detail in this complaint stated that the complainant did not receive his public holiday entitlements set out in an Employment Regulation Order (ERO). The complainant at the hearing could not provide any detail on any an Employment Regulation Order which he was claiming to have been covered by and did not provide any detail on this complaint, he was unaware of its meaning or content. He stated that it may have been ticked in error. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00031702-019 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
This claim relates to an allegation of non-receipt of a statement in writing of terms of employment. The complainant submitted a number of claims against the above-named respondent on 18th of October 2019. The complaint form states that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19/10/2018 to 06/09/2O19. The claims were notified to the named respondent who replied to the WRC denying any knowledge or employment relationship with the complainant. Further correspondence issued to the named respondent at the address provided in the complaint form who again replied stating that they had no knowledge of the complainant and had never had an employment relationship with him. The Commission notified the complainant of this on 23 September 2021 seeking an alternative address for the respondent. The complainant on 28th of September 2021 replied to the Commission advising that his employer was in fact Mr. Tom Mannion of the Ashford Court Hotel and stating that the named respondent and address details provided in his complaint form may have been a temporary company name. A notification of the complaint was issued to Mr. Tom Mannion followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue. Mr. Mannion attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021. Mr. Mannion advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the Ashford Court Hotel. He stated that he had placed an ad in the local paper in a personal and private capacity looking for a live in caretaker who would receive bed and board plus a nominal fee to stay on the premises if he had to leave for any reason. He advised the hearing that the hotel itself at that time had been housing a lot of homeless people and many who were down on their luck and stated that he wanted someone to be on the premises to keep an eye on things if he had to pop into town or run errands. Mr. M stated that he had initially given the complainant €50 a week as well as free bed and board but that he later increased this to €100 a week as he felt bad about giving him so little. Mr. M stated that he had handed this fee in cash to the complainant. Mr. M stated that there was no employment relationship that it was an informal arrangement between two individuals with no contract of employment, no payslips and no duties required of the complainant other than to be on the premises to answer the phone and the door if Mr. M was not around. Mr. M stated that that he himself was on call 24/7 and that it was his details which were provided as the contact for anyone in need of assistance. Mr. M stated that he had discovered that the complainant had taken it upon himself to type up a notice giving himself the title of Night Porter and attaching his phone number. Mr. M stated that the complainant had no authority to do this and had done it of his own accord. Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was free to come and go as and when he pleased. The complainant in advancing his argument that he was an employee produced a letter from a staff member of the hotel Ms. L stating that he had been employed as a night porter. The respondent in reply to this produced another letter signed by the same individual Ms. L stating that she was asked by the complainant to write a reference letter as a favour to him as he was trying to find a job in Ennis, she stated that the complainant had dictate the letter to her and that she had written it as a favour she further states that she had no idea that the letter would be used against Mr. Mannion. Mr. Mannion stated that Ms. L writer of the letter had written the letter as dictated to her by the complainant and that she had done so as a favour to help him find a job. I note that the writer of the letters was not in attendance at the hearing and I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this letter does not amount to proof of an employment relationship. Having considered all of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the named respondent Living Social Europe Limited. It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. Mannion was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. Mannion had to run errands or leave the premises. The evidence as adduced does not support a contract of employment relationship. I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I have found that the Complainant was not an employee of the named Respondent or the alternatively proposed respondent and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. It is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00031702-020 | 18/10/2019 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant at the hearing advised that he was not making a claim in respect of a person involved in mobile road transport activities and that this claim may have been ticked in error. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Dated: 03rd May 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|