Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bill  Kelly

Templederry Renewable Energy Supply Ltd Community Power

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Dermot O'Donovan sol

Noel Carey -first day of hearing

John Madden BL second day of hearing instructed by T Kelly sols

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00050845-001

25/05/2022

This is case is concerned with a complaint of constructive dismissal. The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent from November 2019 to the end of 2021 on his main activities on behalf of the Respondent. There was a further, separate piece of work completed in or around January 2022 which was additional to and paid for separately from the normal system of payment. The Complainant also received what he described as a bonus payment of €8000 in relation to a specific piece of work he was involved in.

A system of payment was agreed at the outset of the engagement in terms set out by the Complainant on 12 November 2019. In accordance with those terms, a salary equivalent figure of €506 per week was to be paid, for a three-day week plus a figure estimated at €54 per week for travel subsistence and admin, also for a three-day week. The arrangement to be reviewed at the end of January 2020 with a view to extend to the end of June 2020. While there was no document or email confirming these terms issued by the Respondent, these are the terms which operated until December 2021. Payment was made on foot of invoices submitted by the Complainant headed Professional Services Invoice – to Temple Derry Community Wind Farm. The Respondent provided a schedule of seven payments made on foot of invoices in 2020 and eleven in 2021.

Efforts to agree new terms were unsuccessful with Mr Carey on behalf of the Respondent verbally indicating that the terms proposed by Mr Kelly at that stage were unaffordable. To all intents and purposes, the contractual relationship ended in December 2021 except for an additional piece of contract work in respect of an application to Pobal-for which the Complainant was paid €2000.

As a preliminary issue the nature of the employment relationship is in contention. The Complainant maintains this was a normal employment relationship where he was employed on a contract which amounted to a contract of service whereas the Respondent rejects this claim, maintaining that this was always a contract for service with the Complainant being self-employed on a consultancy basis throughout the period of his contract.

Having considered all of the evidence and documentation provided by the parties, I am now issuing a Decision as distinct from a ruling on the preliminary issue i.e., the nature of the employment relationship.

Submission on Behalf of the Complainant

The Complainant’s position is that this was an employment relationship in which he, Mr Kelly, was an employee. It is the nature of the work which underpins the contention that Mr Kelly was an employee which relationship was brought about by constructive engagement at the time. There was a verbal agreement which stemmed from a meeting on 11th November 2019 where Mr Kelly met with J Fogarty. Previously, he had been engaged elsewhere as a community-based shop manager and had a history of involvement in community-based activity getting places up and running and had displayed an interest in energy production on a community basis. After an initial discussion in 2019 telephone numbers were exchanged. Subsequently he received an invitation from John Fogarty to join the Company on terms that were set out which always involved a payment of €500(€506) per week and for which he was asked to provide an invoice and he was happy to do so. The Complainant engaged in no other work in any other company during this period and while the initial engagement was agreed at three days per week this spread to five over a period. He was not in a position to subcontract the work to another person. The Complainant contributed to the success of one of the companies and he was made secretary of one of the companies. In general terms the role was related to an interest in setting up community-based power generation systems for the production of energy to be sold on involving the erection of pylons and solar panels. It was never mentioned that he was to be retained as an independent contractor or consultant. There was always an understanding that he was to be an employee. It is Mr Kelly’s contention that after a period of the operation of the contract NC encouraged both Mr F and Mr K to regularise the situation in terms of the employment relationship or everyone would be in trouble. In reality this was a bogus self-employment contract from which Revenue were deprived of income and Mr Kelly was deprived of his rights. In 2021 Mr Kelly wanted to regularise the situation but John Fogarty never wanted to do so and Mr Kelly was forced to write to him setting out proposed terms. Subsequently he received only one telephone call, from Mr Carey, who described the financial terms as excessive and there was no contact thereafter. Mr Kelly contends that he is covered by the provision of the Unfair Dismissals Act and that he was constructively dismissed.

In terms of his role within the Company Mr Kelly was required to:

·         Do the work which was detailed to him and was given to him by his employer.

·         He was not self-directed and he worked within a group as did other employees.

·         Prior to Covid he attended regularly at the office.

·         During Covid he worked from home, instructions were given to him. There was a slight change during that period in that not all of the work was ongoing.

·         At the very commencement C, who formerly worked in the Revue Commissioners knew that it (the contractual arrangement) was wrong, he encouraged JF to regularise and this was never done.

·         Mr F gave him a business card as sales manager and he was introduced by that title in that role, he was integral to the activities of the Company.

·         In terms of mutuality of obligation, he was always getting directions. Once he had completed the work on the Pobal application, he was not contacted again about any work for the Respondent.

·         He maintained that the payment of the €8000 bonus came as a surprise to him in terms of the amount but contended that the payment was a further indication of his integration within the Company.

In summary the Complainant was fully engaged with the work of the Company, he worked long hours, he followed instructions, carried them out and he received a weekly payment with nothing outside of that payment and could not substitute anything else for that work.

Evidence of Mr Kelly

Mr Kelly’s evidence was largely along the lines of the position set out on his behalf.

The Complainant described his first meeting with representatives of the Respondent and described his own expertise in community service in Limerick. The Complainant described his discussions on the 11th of November 2019 with Mr Fogarty and he was satisfied that Mr C was part of the discussions. He described in detail his work in relation to the generation of sales of electricity and he was very successful in bringing customers on board. There was no criticism of his work at any stage. NC informed him that he would be receiving a bonus around 2021. He was given an ID card the day he started and a mobile phone. His role changed from sales manager to community employment manager and he explained his role in the Interreg application. He would have attended meetings and worked alongside other staff. Regarding the submission of invoices, he was told to invoice a particular name whereas there was no such company. The limited company in Templederry has a different name whereas the company he was told to submit invoices to did not exist. Asked was he paid annual leave he said no, he worked a three-day week which morphed into five. He attended the office in Nenagh on a regular basis multiple times. He received an email in advance of all meetings and NC and JF would have sat in on those meetings whereas others described by the Respondent as consultants in the same light as himself only attended for specific projects whereas he attended all of those meetings. In summary, he attended weekly meetings with other staff, he reported on work which he had completed; work was farmed out to him and he was directed to do the work. Asked by NC if he had an office in Nenagh he explained that there were two offices in Nenagh, during Covid he predominantly worked at home. After that he was not asked to the office but when he attended prior to Covid he would sit at whatever desk was vacant, that no desk had his name on it.

On the second day of the hearing, Mr Kelly’s representative acknowledged that at the outset of the contract, referencing the documentation of 12 November 2019, this was a contract arrangement with his client on a self-employed basis. This he acknowledged on the basis of his professional responsibility to assist the Adjudicator (which was acknowledged as being the case). Mr O Donovan then went on to say that the relationship had morphed over its course into another relationship-that of a direct employee when the time commitment involved in the work became evident. Asked by the Chair if he could date that change, there was no precise date stipulated, but he maintained that it was in sufficient time to allow Mr Kelly had twelve months service as an employee for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Act. Part of the contract he agreed with the Respondent provided for a review and the relationship morphed very quickly into that of an employer/employee relationship.

Mr Allen’s evidence that there was a change in Mr Kelly’s role probably in or around 2020, was put to Mr Kelly who denied that it had changed as described by Mr Allen.

In summarising the case on behalf of his client, Mr O Donovan cited particular precedents from the many he had submitted as relevant:

Henry Denny which was particularly important as the case involved a person who was required to be present at certain times and place and wore a uniform.

The case involving meter readers with the ESB who were required to provide a constant service, day in day out, and Camphill as decided by the Labour Court more recently were also cited as particularly relevant to the facts in this case.

As previously indicated, following the second full day of the hearing, Mr Kelly submitted further documentation through his solicitor. The significance which he pointed to in that documentation was the reference to the following’ Community Power currently employs ateam of 5 dedicated specialists’ It goes on to mention my role and duties as an employee, as one of the five employees and the includes me in the Organisational Chart’. At section 2 the term team members is used, to include him and he pointed out that (Other) external providers were not included in the organisational chart.

Summary of Respondent’s Position and Evidence on Day 1 of the hearing.

Witness Noel Carey

It was their position that Mr Kelly was a self-employed consultant and not an employee. The witness stated in evidence that it was his role to deal with money and monthly outgoings and to authorise payments and Mr Kelly was always paid as a consultant, was always happy with this arrangement and returns were made on that basis. There was never any question of taking Mr Kelly on as an employee. He said he had no recollection of meeting the Complainant in Mulgrave Street in Limerick with JF. In reference to the Complainant saying that he had knowledge of energy production he was not aware of such expertise whereas he acknowledged that the Complainant had a flair for community development. He appeared to question the impact of the Complainant on the success of the Company (describing it as grossly exaggerated in a written submission). Regarding responses to his request for employee status he was repeatedly told by NC that he should contact JF in 2021, that was not the case as JF was absent for six months in 2021 and he was a very ill person at the time and the witness said he would not be suggesting that Mr Kelly would hassle him during that period. The witness said he did suggest that there might be an irregularity in the invoices that could be construed as an issue by Revenue. Regarding the weekly meetings there would be weekly or fortnightly meetings and updates from five or six different people. The Complainant attended at the office for meetings and not for any work. Regarding the statement that he had no other employment or could not have other employment, it was his understanding that the Complainant always had other things going on. Two and a half days per week was his commitment to the Company and resources did not allow for a higher amount to be paid. The witness said he had no role in assigning a title to the Complainant. At no stage was his status as an employee raised by Mr Kelly. It was not the case that he could not subcontract his work. The Respondent had no idea what he did outside of his commitment to their business. At the end of quarter 3 2021 it was decided that the Complainant would prepare a discussion document with the intent of engaging him as an employee. Why would they have had a discussion or he make a submission if he was already an employee? His preference was to maintain the monthly invoices, but he was open to considering PAYE in a future relationship. The Complainant made a submission, but it never got to the table regarding the remuneration package which was regarded as extravagant amounting to €70 to 75k, 50 to 100% more than others. When he read the document, he immediately contacted the Complainant to tell him that the terms of the package proposed was a deal breaker. In his written submission, the witness stated that he never heard from the Complainant after that call about his becoming an employee.

Evidence of Mr J Fogarty -Day 2

The witness described himself as MD of Community Power. Greg Allen is the manager and CEO. He gave evidence of knowing the Complainant who he came into contact with in 2015/2016 and then he provided some background as the developments in 2019-before that everything was part of an EU project. They were successful in achieving approval for a project. A technical group called Empower was formed and there was a link with the Tipperary Enterprise Agency. Bill Kelly knew that they were competing for customers for Community Power -previously he had knocked on doors trying to sign up customers, to get them to switch customers. He lived in Limerick and the intention was to have their own group for that area. Bill Kelly came to work with them in November 2019. Asked about the agreed terms of engagement he replied that they were broad enough. The work would be whatever could be beneficial, he could work to his own method, there were no targets, he would be canvassing customers, there were no set hours-the time commitment was entirely up to himself with no time restrictions. The Complainant had total control of his own work. Any relevant discussion about his work took place at regular meetings; Mr Kelly had no direct manager and no he did not attend the office for work. He would collect materials including brochures when he attended for meetings.

On tax and other deductions these were Mr Kelly’s own responsibility. On the contention that there was an understanding that the arrangement would be formalised into one of an employee, Mr Fogarty asserted that was the Complainants interpretation. He referred to the impact of Covid, of things not working out (as hoped) and his own ill health in 2021. Asked if he had discussions with Mr Kelly about regularising his position, Mr Fogarty stated it was mentioned, but not frequently, he was not in a position to offer anything. In relation to the bonus (SEAI) the Complainant was involved as a consultant and they tried to be generous to everyone involved.

On the title of sales manager, the witness stated that Bill Kelly assigned that to himself. Regarding meetings in the office, he testified that Mr Kelly attended the office in Nenagh on occasion for meetings. Asked if he accepted that theirs was a warm relationship, the witness replied yes, that they got on. Asked if he had met Mr Kelly in a service station in Bird hill to discuss the possibility of Mr Kelly joining the organisation and the terms, with some toing and froing in debate, he confirmed those meetings occurred. In these exchanges Mr Fogarty reiterated that Mr Kelly came on board as a consultant, that he also volunteered to be a consultant. What was agreed was a payment of €200 per day with an upper limit of €500. There was no agreement on expenses but then there were to be expenses. Asked was there a review after three months (as specified in the terms submitted in November 2019), the witness said no, not really, they just said that they would see how it worked out. Regarding the title on the business card, he said they had them printed in one batch and each person was contacted to see what title they wanted on the card. Mr Kelly decided his own title-and they had no problem with it. On being given work to do by Mr Fogarty, the witness stated that most of the time it was up to the Complainant himself to decide on his own work. He maintained that there was no agreement to regularise Mr Kelly’s position into one of an employee, that never happened. Asked of the contract agreed with Mr Kelly in 2019 was approved by the Board, the hearing was informed that there are no minutes concerned with the appointment of Mr Kelly. On the matter of the invoices being to a non-existent company, he stated this was correct-however the payments were charged to the correct company.

Greg Allen Witness Day 2

The witness explained that he is the CEO/GM with Community Power. Theirs is a highly regulated industry and they were trying to grow the base of customers which was Mr Kelly’s role. There are full time and part time employees. Asked about the difference between Mr Kelly and the employees at the company, Mr Allen said that he never saw Mr Kelly as an employee. Those who are employees have written terms and conditions of employment. Employees attend at the office (for work), not Mr Kelly who came to attend essential meetings-but not as an employee. The meetings attended by Mr Kelly were meetings of the Executive, not staff meetings. He referred to another consultant who was engaged on a retainer to work as required. Regarding the ID provided to Mr Kelly, the witness explained that ID was required when calling to a person’s house, the ID was provided to allow him to do his job-trying to sign up customers. He described his knowledge of Mr Kelly’s engagement in 2019 as peripheral. He was really surprised when he heard it was being suggested that Mr Kelly was an employee of the Company. On one specific point, that Mr Kelly claimed to be working five days a week to deliver the contracted work, Mr Allen disputed this-stating that if this was the case, it would have been seen in the deliverables. He confirmed that his relationship with the Complainant was not always good referring to the way Mr Kelly reacted to contributions/requests from Mr Allen on zoom meetings.

The summaries of the position and evidence are just that, a summary in each case. There was absolutely no common ground on many of the details and/or the interpretation given to the level of detail presented by both parties on the nature of the employment relationship and Mr Kelly’s role within the Company.  There were strong points in Mr Kelly’s position most notably his wearing an ID badge for some of his work, having a mobile phone and reporting on his work to Mr Fogarty. His non-attendance at the office post Covid appears to have been more about his poor relationship with Mr Allen than any strategic or work-based change in his role.  Another strong point in favour of Mr Kelly is the team-based description of his role as where he is described as a specialist and which he provided post the hearing in February 2023. The vagueness of Mr Fogarty’s evidence, in not taking any real responsibility for the nature of the relationship from the outset and his lack of involvement thereafter, even before he was ill and unable to be involved in day-to-day matters, I found to be less than forthright. Here was one of the chief architects of the entire project and the central figure therein almost blaming Mr Kelly for everything that was agreed without taking the time to confirm the arrangements or indeed to have them recorded and approved at Board level.  This was a community-based organisation, not a large wealthy one and it would be expected that a contract of this relative size and importance would have been formally recorded and approved.

On the subject of his work and what was contracted for and where the boundaries of self-direction and oversight lay, there is and was an unconscionable vagueness about the whole arrangement for which the Respondent must be held responsible.

In terms of his ability to work for others, there was no bar on Mr Kelly doing so even in his own contract or his own proposed later contract. The Respondent could say he did have the right and the opportunity to work for others and certainly his contracted time commitment did not prevent him doing so.

 In contrast to those points in favour of Mr Kelly’s claim, I find that attendance at an office pre Covid was for a specific purpose but it is also found that purpose related wholly or mainly to his contracted work and did not result in in integration within the staffing complement as an employee. That in his case he could remain at home post Covid was not a case of facilitating remote working, but rather that his presence as part of the staffing complement was not required, at all. I am satisfied that there is a distinction between work in progress meetings around project work which were attended by all consultants at different stages depending on their involvement with the Respondent but that these were separate from and did not constitute staff meetings as such or integration with the overall nature of the work of the Company. I do wish to add that while I accept there was a reporting on his own work at these meetings, there was a lack of clarity on both sides as to what and when Mr Fogarty was directing Mr Kelly to do such that he could demonstrate that this was a relationship in which Mr Kelly was subservient to Mr Fogarty in what work he did and how he did that work such as to meet the control test.

I find that the nature of the contractual relationship entered into did not alter to any great extent during its lifetime. This point may seem unimportant in a claim where it is contended that a person. However, the fact remains that the financial payment arrangement and the terms of contract remained unaltered for the duration of the contract is found to be significant in this case. Equally in some of the presentations of the position by Mr Kelly where he seeks to portray himself as the honest person seeking to become an employee-while the Respondent was actively and repeatedly wanting to operate a bogus self-employed contract, simply do not stand up to scrutiny when the related documentation prepared by him in 2019 and again in 2021 is examined. Mr Kelly’s central role in drawing up the documentation in 2019 and again as proposed in 2021 is found to be crucial in deciding the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties i.e., as to whether this was a contract of or a contract for service. I

It was submitted on his behalf, that the ignorance rule applies to Mr Kelly, that he simply did not know his rights and did not have professional representation to advise him. However, Mr Kelly was not someone who was working a roster of hours where he had to account for his time or for the most part be at specified places at specified times on a daily basis. His contract was that he would be paid up to a limit of two and a half days -but this arrangement did not direct him to work to a timetable or to produce targets-it simply represented the maximum and minimum payments for his time. At times he claims that his hours exceeded the agreed volume, at others for example during Covid or when an aspect of the contract was not performing to agreed expectations, that volume of work appears to have decreased. Even if his hours exceeded what he expected when submitting his payment terms, being required to work more or less than the contractor expected at the outset, does not create a contract of service.

When it came to the contract proposal in 2021 Mr Kelly was specifying his area of work to the Company and his correspondence in December 2021 is quite dismissive in almost dictating what he wanted to do-irrespective of what he would be paid. Not exactly the indications of an ongoing and well-established employer/ employee employment relationship with a strong mutuality element.

In considering the importance of the unchanging nature of the contractual relationship between 2019 and 2021, there are indisputable facts concerning the actions of Mr Kelly which are such as to determine that claims of ignorance are not sustainable and moreover his central role in drawing up the actual and proposed terms cannot be discounted.

Mr Kelly’s involvement in drawing up the contract terms.

 Accepting he did meet with Mr Fogarty and that they agreed the terms which would apply, Mr Kelly himself then wrote the terms of the Contract to confirm the agreed understanding-date 12 November 2019 That document provided for an invoice arrangement, at a set level for a set period of weekly time and what would be paid.

It is reasonable to conclude that Mr Kelly knew what he was entering into and that there was no commitment or understanding that this was an employment relationship but rather this was a contract with someone on a self-employed basis. This conclusion was supported by his representative at the hearing. Neither Mr Kelly or his representative can point to a particular date when the nature of the work and therefore the employment relationship changed-other than it became more time consuming than Mr Kelly had envisaged. This may have been a fair point at some stage/s but giving more time than envisaged when a fixed rate of payment is agreed, does not of itself form the basis of transforming the nature of the employment relationship into a contract of service.

Knowledge versus Ignorance. In circumstances where he negotiated and wrote his own terms and chose the option of invoicing and did not subsequently report those payments to Revenue, it has to be concluded that Mr Kelly knew exactly what he was doing and what he was entering into by way of the nature of the contractual relationship i.e., he would work as a consultant and not an employee. The ignorance argument submitted on his behalf does not hold water against the facts.  From November 2019 until December 2021 Mr Kelly invoiced for professional fees on an invoiced basis. The idea or any suggestion that while he used the term salary equivalent in his document of November 2019 that he was in fact creating an employer employee relationship is not credible. In this conclusion I cannot ignore the fact that when the failure to register the payments for taxable purposes is taken into account, the invoicing arrangement worked to the financial advantage of both parties, but most notably for Mr Kelly for whom the gross payments invoiced were also nett amounts for a period two years until this WRC hearing process commenced.

Allowing then that the initial contract was to be reviewed after a few months, this did not happen in practice or not in what might be termed any tangible fashion. Covid was almost certainly a factor in 2020 given the timeline. Accepting that the longer the contract continued in place that Mr Carey rightly had genuine concerns about the legitimacy of continuing the invoice arrangement, Mr Kelly’s own proposal as set out in a document dated 19 September 2021 reinforces the rejection of the ignorance or lack of knowledge argument as suggested on his behalf at the hearing:

Payment preferably via monthly invoice from my limited company (fully tax compliant etc.).

a.      I am open to consider payment via the PAYE system if CP has a strong preference to go the PAYE route, e.g., if there are employment covenants with EI for example.

And

Revenue Generating Work (e.g., RESS community training-which I deliver) to be invoiced by me to CP’

The document continues with further references to work which would be invoiced if/when it arose. None of the wording of this document comes close to supporting an assertion that he was seeking to regularise his position solely as an employee, other than seeking new and enhanced terms for payments and in doing so expressing a preference where possible to retaining a system of invoicing-to his limited company.

In the absence of any response to his proposal in September, Mr Kelly again wrote on 24 December 2021 as follows:

‘I am available to work up to a maximum of four days per week.

My daily rate is €500(ex vat) -per day or part thereof

My daily rate is to be discounted by €100 for each additional day in any one week, …

The number of days to be worked in any specific week to be notified in writing, by CP to me on or before the preceding Friday

In the absence of anything being notified in (4) above I will assume I am not required by CP in the upcoming week

Any work undertaken by me for CP to be invoiced weekly in arrears via my own limited company, which is registered for vat, fully tax compliant and has the appropriate insurances in place

The remaining two clauses relate to payment of expenses.

While there is reference to ‘regularising the tax situation’ in an email on December 27th to Noel Carey-that statement appears to follow from Mr Careys expressed concerns a few days earlier about continuing an invoicing arrangement (as well as the cost of the package proposed by Mr Kelly). The contents of the September and December emails sent by Mr Kelly do not support in any way the statement in his complaint form or his evidence or submissions that he was the one seeking the employment relationship but somehow it was the Respondent who was evading this point even when by inference Mr Kelly was actively seeking a contract of service. The text of the emails which he issued in September and again in December 2021 are not reflective of the written assertions ‘theycouldn’t or wouldn’t regularise my position…I emailed them in December outlining my dissatisfaction with the ongoing irregular nature of my position in CP…I further stated that if a regular salaried position wasn’t available my weekly charge rate would be increasing with effect from January 2022 and any would have to be in the tax system.’

As a matter of fact, in his revised proposals Mr Kelly never actively sought a salary arrangement or an employee relationship. His stated preference in writing and the basis of his proposal was one of submitting invoices-referring to his company. If Mr Kelly was ignorant of his rights in 2019 2020 and 2021, he knew exactly what he wanted in late 2021-a self-employed contract basis was his stated preference. Mr Kelly was always the driver in respect of the terms of the financial terms which he wanted applied. He was neither ignorant or innocent in these matters and his claims that the fault lay all on the other side of the equation are not borne out by his own written proposals. What is being attempted here is a rewriting of the facts to provide a platform for a complaint rather than a genuine expression of the reality of the contracts and payment arrangements which Mr Kelly variously agreed and proposed and actioned.

In terms of precedents cited on behalf of the Complainant, his representatives stated that all were relevant but drew particular attention to the judgement in ‘Henry Denny’. Having done so, I see a great reliance on the part of the original decision maker in that case, that the worker concerned had no option but to sign the terms offered to her and therefore could not be expected to be bound by them. This argument was not present in this current case. On his own evidence Mr Kelly was approached by the Respondent and freely entered into discussions and the contractual arrangements. That this is the case is supported by his own correspondence at the end of 2021 when he was expressing in very strong terms the work which he would and would not wish to perform in any future contractual arrangement, which as it happens did not materialise. Furthermore, and as referenced elsewhere was Mr Kelly who wrote the contract, such as it was, including the terms of payment and it was Mr Kelly who, crucially set out the terms on which he wished it to be renewed with a stated preference for a continuation of the engagement as a self-employed contractor with payments to be made to his own company. The contention that the decision in ‘Henry Denny’ is appropriate as a case comparable with the instant case is not accepted as finding grounds for upholding the claim that the Complainant in this case was, or became, an employee on a contract of service with the Respondent

It will be evident from these findings and conclusions that the claim by Mr Kelly that he was an employee at all times throughout his engagement by the Respondent does not find favour in this decision. I will close by repeating my observation at the second day of hearing that the dearth of paperwork on the part of the Respondent is striking to say the least. Remarkable might be more apt. Most particularly at the end of the relationship when nothing at all was put in writing to Mr Kelly. Such silence was really quite disrespectful of any person who did after all work with and on behalf of the Respondent for two years. This has been a time-consuming aggravating and costly experience which could have been avoided by a more responsible approach by the representatives of the Respondent on terms of the contractual arrangements.

CA-00050845-01 As I find that the Complainant Mr Bill Kelly was not at any time an employee of the Respondent engaged on a contract of service by Templederry Renewable Energy Supply Ltd, I do not have jurisdiction to make an order for redress under section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act. The claim is therefore dismissed.