Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ollie  Murray Greiner

IT Force Limited

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00046651-001

12/10/2021

The complainant says he should have been paid for the work he did in an unpaid internship.

The complainant accepted an unpaid internship with the respondent as part of Work Experience for his university degree. It lasted for 5 months, from 1 April to 27 August 2021 However, he says he performed all the same functions and responsibilities as a level 1 technician and believes he should have been paid for the entire duration of his placement. He says issued 800 client tickets, wrote 5 new guides, added to 8 guides, assisted at level 2, provided cover for a supervisor and took phone calls. He says his value was shown at the end of the internship he was offered a weekly rolling contract, which he rejected.

The respondent says the work placement was a module on the complainant’s course and the Work Experience Agreement between them and the complainant clearly documented the placement was unpaid and the complainant clearly chose to undertake an unpaid internship with them. The complainant was supervised at all times and undertook low end technical admin duties. For the first few month’s interns are a major draw on qualified employees.

In weeks 1-8 the complainant spent an average of less than 6 hours per week on client tickets. This increased to an average of 19 hours per week in weeks 9-22 of his placement. The respondent says they would not be able to offer internships if they had to pay the minimum wage because interns are only becoming of value to them towards the end of the internship. Some, like the complainant, are offered temporary paid positions for a period before they return to university. Also, they have offered permanent posts to people who have previously undertaken internships with them; because of this experience.

The complainant undertook an unpaid internship with the respondent and both sides signed a Work Experience Agreement. The complainant says he should have been paid for the entirety of the placement as he carried out the work of a paid employee. The respondent says the complainant got a good deal of work experience, which was the purpose of the placement, but was of little value to them until towards the end of the placement.

This complainant is made under the Payments of Wages Act which states: ““employee” means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of employment”. The Work Experience Agreement says the respondent “will facilitate the unpaid work experience of Ollie Murray Greiner” it says nothing about the work that will be undertaken but it does undertake to provide “necessary induction and training” on the respondent’s systems and policies relevant to the role. It was confirmed in evidence at the hearing that the complainant was not given full access to their systems at the beginning of the placement. Full access came after time.

It is clear to me that the respondent did not have the same expectations of the complainant as they would have of a permanent employee, and he was not taken on through a recruitment process. The college look for suitable organisations where their students would gain work experience. The complainant gained this experience.

However, it is clear to me the complainant was not employed under a contract of employment, with all the attendant obligations on both parties that are involved in such a contract. In these circumstances the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Act and is therefore not well founded.

For the reasons given above the complaint is not well founded.

Payment of wages – not well founded