FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : SHANNONS SOLICITORS DIVISION :
1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00030508 CA-00040376-002
A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 February 2022. DECISION: Background The Appellant contends that she was employed by the Employer from 10thFebruary 2020 until 22ndJune 2020. She contends that she was dismissed on 22ndJune 2020 without adequate explanation or without the pursuance of any fair procedure. She maintains that, on that date, in a phone call from the senior partner of the employer, she was advised that she was no longer employed. The Employer contends that the Appellant was not employed by it under a contract of service at any material time and was engaged in an internship or work experience programme from November 2019. In the submission of the Employer, she remained in such an internship or work experience programme until its termination on 26thMarch 2020. The internship or work experience programme was unpaid until the Employer decided, in February 2020, to pay a stipend to her in acknowledgement of the work she was doing in the Respondent firm. The Appellant submitted that whereas she was involved in a form of unpaid internship from November 2020; she was offered and accepted employment with the Respondent with effect from 10thFebruary 2020 and that the employment was terminated without notice by the Respondent on 22ndJune 2020. Summary position of Appellant The Appellant submitted that, following a period of unpaid engagement with the Respondent from November 2019, the Respondent in the person of Vincent Shannon, a senior partner of the Respondent, contacted her at the end of January 2020 to offer her employment as a full-time legal secretary in the Respondent firm. Mr Shannon, in a phone call at that time, offered her a salary of €20,000 per annum in return for a 37.5-hour week commencing on 10thFebruary 2020. She submitted that the job was offered to her by phone call from the Respondent in late January 2020 and that, consequent on that phone call, she terminated her permanent employment with another employer. She worked from 10thFebruary 2020 for three weeks in that month and received a salary payment of €1,153.84 which exactly reflects a calculation of three weeks’ pay based on a salary of €20,000 per annum. She provided the Court with a copy of a pay slip for that period, described on that pay slip as ‘monthly period 2’, provided to her by the Respondent which demonstrated that she was paid €1,153.84 and that the Respondent had paid employer contributions of €101.54 as well as having made deductions from her salary of €8.83 in employee PRSI contributions and €8.07 in Universal Social Charge. She also provided the Court with a copy of a pay slip for the period to 26thMarch 2020, described on that payslip as ‘monthly period 3’provided to her by the Respondent which demonstrated that she was paid €798.81 in respect of the period to that date and that the Respondent had paid employer contributions of €70.30 as well as having made a deduction from her salary of €8.07 in Universal Social Charge. She provided the Court with an e-mail from a partner of the Respondent on 26thMarch 2020 advising her to make a claim against the Department of Social protection but assuring her that she would be paid “for the three weeks you worked in March”. The Appellant also provided the Court with a letter dated 6thJuly 2020 from the Respondent which stated that she had “worked in this office from 29thNovember 2019 to 24thMarch 2020 as a legal intern and then a Legal Secretary. Due to Covid staff were let go at this time and her employment officially ended on June 22nd2020” She submitted that in the period in question she provided general secretarial assistance, production of correspondence and dictaphone work as well as supporting a partner and on occasion covering the main reception area of the practice. She said that she held more responsibility as an employee than she had as an intern / work experience participant previously. She submitted that she was required to complete a period of self-isolation due to Covid 19 from 24thMarch 2020 until 7thApril 2020. On the 22nd June 2020 she spoke with Vincent Shannon on the phone and he told her that the Respondent no longer had a job for her and advised her to continue to claim the pandemic unemployment payment (PUP). Summary position of Employer The Employer submitted that the Appellant was not at any time or at all engaged under a contract of service giving rise to an employer / employee relationship and consequently no breach of the Act as alleged could have occurred. She had made unsolicited contact with the Employer in November 2019 and a non-remunerative work experience placement was discussed. Upon accepting the placement, it did not give rise to a contract of employment. When asked by the Court to comment on the letter of the Employer dated 6thJuly which asserted that the Appellant worked in the office until 24thMarch as a legal intern and then as a legal secretary and that her employment officially ended on June 22nd2020, the Employer’s representative submitted that this letter was by way of a reference. He agreed that a reference document was a serious document and that a person reading its content was entitled to believe that it was true. The Court asked the Employer’s representative to comment on the proposition that the payment made to the Appellant on 28thFebruary 2020 was the exact amount which would have been due to be paid to her had she been engaged on a salary of €20,000 as she alleged from 10thFebruary until 28thFebruary 2020. The representative submitted that if this was the mathematical reality it was, according to his instructions, a co-incidence. Discussion and conclusions It is common case that the Appellant worked for 37.5 hours per week in the Employer’s firm with effect from 10thFebruary 2020. According to the Appellant she was working under a contract of service following an offer of employment made to her by Vincent Shannon, a senior partner, in a ‘phone call in late January 2020. According to Mr Shannon, he could not recollect a phone conversation with the Appellant at the end of January. In any event he stated in evidence that no offer of employment was made to her at that time or at all. It is a mathematical fact that the payment made to the Appellant on 28thFebruary was in the exact amount which would have been due to her had she, as she alleged, accepted an offer of employment commencing on 10thFebruary on a salary of €20,000 per annum. It is also a fact that in a letter dated 6thJuly the Respondent did record that the Appellant had worked for the Respondent as she alleged as a Legal secretary and that her employment had, as she alleged, been terminated on 22ndJune 2020. There is no dispute between the parties that the Appellant carried out the tasks and duties which she alleged she had carried out on behalf of the Respondent with effect from 10thFebruary 2020. The Court concludes that the Appellant was employed by the Employer with effect from 10thFebruary 2020 and that the employment of the Appellant terminated on 22ndJune 2020 as she alleges and as recorded by the Employer in a letter dated 6thJuly 2020. Decision No submission has been made to the Court that any procedure at all was followed in arriving at the decision to dismiss the Appellant from her employment or that she was enabled to make any representations or an appeal on her own behalf. For these reasons the Court decides that the Employer should pay the sum of €2,500 in full and final settlement of the within trade dispute. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
