ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00043717
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | 3D Visualiser | Digital solution company |
Representatives | Self | Damien Tansey Damien Tansey Solicitors LLP |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) | CA-00054654 | 14/01/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 18/01/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 18/01/2023 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The worker worked for the employer for 11 days and believes that he was dismissed when he decided not to do any further work until such time as he received a contract of employment. The employer states that the employee was engaged under a contract for services. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker’s position is that he was employed and all his interactions with the employer were on that basis. He was working remotely from outside the country and was to submit invoices which would then be paid on a “Business to Business” arrangement. The worker believes that he was dismissed when he was seeking a contract of employment |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer states that the worker was never engaged as an employee. He was fully remote and based outside the jurisdiction. He was able to choose his own hours and provided his own equipment. There was no mutuality of obligation as the worker could decide when he was or was not working for the employer. He was registered for VAT and held himself to be “self-employed”. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Section 8, Part II of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 defines a “Trade Dispute” as follows: “Trade Dispute” means any dispute between employers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms and conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person”.
From the documentation provided to me it is clear that the worker was not employed and was not based in the State. He was a self-employed subcontractor. As the worker in this case was not an employee, I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to him. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to the worker for the reasons set out above.
Dated: 14th February 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Self-employed. Contract of service. |