Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

18/10/2019

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. M of the A Hotel was notified of the complaint and of the hearing date and attended the hearing.

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. M of the A Hotel.    

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. M of the A Hotel was notified of the complaint and of the hearing date and attended the hearing.

This claim relates to an allegation of Unfair dismissal where 12 months service was not attained.

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. M of a named 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. M followed by the notification of a hearing date and venue.  Mr. M attended the hearing which took place on 19th of November 2021.

Mr. M advised the hearing that the complainant was not employed by the named 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 dictated 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. M.  

Mr. M stated that Ms. L the 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. 

It appears that the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the alternatively proposed respondent Mr. M was an informal arrangement whereby the complainant received bed and board and a nominal fee for remaining on the premises if/when Mr. M 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.

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.     I do not recommend in favour of the complainant.