Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nicola  Rutledge

Banghard Limited

Representatives

Cillian McGovern BL instructed by  Crushell  & Co

Paul L. Dunwell

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-00053808-001

22/11/2022

The complainant states on her complaint form that she was employed as a General Manager between 30 March 2016 and 18 August 2022.  Her salary is stated to be €45,800.  The complainant asserts that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment on 18 August 2022.  She submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 22 November 2022.  The redress sought for unfair dismissal is compensation.

The respondent refutes the claim that the complainant was an employee of the respondent company.  Further, the respondent refutes the claim that the complainant was unfairly dismissed from employment.  The respondent in its submission states that this complaint is fatuous, vexatious, greedy, had no substance and should be dismissed with costs awarded against the complainant.

The respondent asserts that the complainant was never an employee of the respondent company and no contract ever existed, either in writing or verbally, to that effect.  Therefore, she would not have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Background

In August 2021 Mr McEleney offered to buy The White House, a run-down and insolvent hotel and bar with some land, from Mr Simon Rutledge, an uncle of the complainant.  It was Mr McEleney’s intention to buy the building and land on which the White House stood for three million euro with payments spread over a maximum of three years.  If he failed to complete the payments, he would get nothing back and he would not get ownership until the full payment was made.

Mr McEleney and Ms Usher Banghard are equal shareholders in the respondent company.  It was quickly apparent to Mr McEleney and Ms Banghard that this should be an asset purchase rather than a business purchase due to the liabilities known and undeclared that had accumulated.  The hotel had twenty bedrooms and there was planning permission to expand to one hundred rooms.  However, it transpired the planning permission had expired.  The deal was never ratified.

The complainant wished to relaunch the hotel as her own business.  She wanted Mr McEleney to pay the three million purchase price over three years and to pay her uncle a lease fee of one hundred thousand euro per year from year two.  Mr McEleney refused to pay a lease fee, but he saw sense in halting the dilapidation of the property by relaunching the business.  So, Mr McEleney and Ms Banghard agreed to help the complainant financially by organising a repayable fifty-thousand-euro float through the respondent company.  This float was intended to allow the complainant to refurbish the venue, hire staff and relaunch the venue.  The profit would be split between the players.

Mr McEleney brought in Mr Edmir Gradica to partner the complainant in preparing and relaunching the hotel.  Mr Gradica had worked with Mr McEleney on other projects and had experience in the hospitality business.  The complainant and Mr Gradica became non-shareholding directors of the respondent company in March 2022.  The complainant and Mr Gradica were to take some funds from the Banghard Limited subsidy for themselves when the business could afford it.

Between December 2021 and March 2022 refurbishment work was carried out on the premises.  In April 2022 the complainant hired several staff using the float provided by Mr McEleney.  The contracts issued were not seen by the other directors and were not Banghard Limited contracts.

Business Operations April to September 2022

In May 2022 Ms Banghard, who had no experience in hospitality, had to get involved in the day-to-day operation of the business. The complainant had refused to offer breakfasts, so Ms Banghard assisted as a breakfast waitress.

The complainant became obstructive, blocking access to the website, removing card machines and was increasingly absent.  In July 2022, when Ms Banghard and Mr Gradica were away the complainant walked off leaving the business in total chaos.  The complainant later claimed to have Covid at that time, but no evidence of same was provided.

Ms Banghard, on her return, had to assume an increasing hands-on role in running the business for which she was not paid.  In September 2022, it transpired, following a Garda raid, that there was no drinks licence as it had expired.  Ms Banghard paid all the staff properly and thanked them.

Ms Banghard and Mr Gradica helped the complainant to transform almost every aspect of the operation.  Thanks to their joint efforts over a period of months the business was becoming profitable.  The complainant was the one who stood to benefit the most as The White House was her and Mr Gradica’s business.  But the respondent could not have anticipated that the complainant would abandon the hotel when Ms Banghard and Mr Gradica were out of the country.  The only reason the respondent company provided the fifty thousand float was so when its purchase of the hotel went through it would not be a derelict building with no established clientele.

Additional Funds

The complainant approached Mr McEleney to ask for a further fifty thousand euro for her uncle.  This was to come from the first tranche of the one million euro, as an advance.  Mr McEleney transferred the funds as requested by the complainant.  The complainant later stated the money was an unsecured loan.  That money was not returned.

Conclusion

The complainant was never an employee of the respondent company.  The complainant and Mr Gradica were in business for themselves.  Mr McEleney invested a six-figure sum in the hotel on trust.  Everything was done in the best interests of a future in which the respondent company and the Rutledge family had a mutual interest.  Mr McEleney formed the view that the complainant consistently sabotaged the project and so he wished to revert to simply dealing with Mr Simon Rutledge, the complainant’s uncle.  Hence, the complainant was told she was no longer going to be part of the equation.

The complainant had no contract of employment, written or verbal, with the respondent company.  The complainant was not fired or unfairly dismissed because she was never an employee of the respondent company.

The complainant was employed as a General Manager.  She commenced employment with the business on 30 March 2016.  The complainant’s annual salary was €45,800 per year.  The employment of the complainant was terminated on 18 August 2022.  She submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 22 November 2022 seeking adjudication under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

In March 2016 the complainant commenced working for her uncle Mr Simon Rutledge at The White House.  On 01 September 2021 the complainant took over the day-to-day running of the business.  At that time, it was agreed that the complainant would continue to work as a General Manager alongside Mr Edmir Gradica.

The complainant contends that the respondent agreed that she would be paid a wage once the company was able to do so.  The complainant and Mr Gradica were expected to work together to get the business up and running again.  The business had been closed for two years because of the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions.

The business included a hotel, restaurant, bar, and function room.  The complainant had to set up accounts with suppliers and source products and services.  In addition, the complainant hired staff and was involved in marketing the business.  When required, she worked behind the bar and in the restaurant.  The complainant contends she worked twelve hours a day on average and often for seven days a week.  By April 2022 the business was re-opening.

Events May to August 2022

At a meeting on 25 May 2022 the complainant was informed by Mr McEleney that he was planning to put fold up container homes on lands owned by her uncle, Mr Simon Rutledge.  The complainant informed Mr McEleney that Mr Rutledge had not agreed to this, and planning permission would be required for such development.  The complainant contends that Mr McEleney did not take this information well.

On 06 June 2022 Mr McEleney had a meeting with Mr John McMorrow.  Mr McMorrow was an advisor to Mr Simon Rutledge.  The complainant alleges that Mr McEleney stated at this meeting that he would pull out of the sale of the business if the complainant did not resign.

On 20 June 2022 Mr Gradica informed the complainant that Mr McEleney had told him to start digging trenches for a car wash at the end of the car park.  The complainant informed Mr Gradica that this was not authorised by Mr Simon Rutledge.  Also, planning permission would be required for such a development.

On 24 June 2022, at a meeting with Mr McEleney, Ms Banghard and Mr Gradica the complainant stated that a car wash would require planning permission and she would not go along with such a plane without the requisite permission.  The complainant alleges that Mr McEleney told her that if she did not go along with the plan her services would no longer be required.

The complainant alleges that at a meeting on 26 June 2022 between Mr McEleney and Mr McMorrow, Mr McEleney demanded that she resign from her position.

The complainant met with Mr McEleney and Mr Gradica on 18 July 2022.  During the meeting there was a dispute about the removal of a sign from the front of the pub.  The complainant denied moving the sign.  The complainant states the Mr McEleney told her she was finished at The White House.  The complainant states that she told Mr McEleney if that was the case, he had to put it in writing and give her a reason for her dismissal.  The complainant states that she felt intimidated and uncomfortable when Mr McEleney slammed his hand down on the table.

The complainant states that Mr McMorrow was informed by Mr McEleney on 03 August 2022 that she was not to be allowed to be anywhere near the business.  On 05 August 2022 the complainant went on certified sick leave suffering from stress.  On 08 August 2022 the complainant sent a request to Ms Banghard to have her wages paid or her holiday pay paid to her.  She also texted Mr McEleney to ask him to stop telling people she had left The White House and asking why her wages were stopped the previous week.  The complainant stated that she was starting to feel bullied and harassed by Mr McEleney.

On 18 August 2022 the complainant attended a meeting with Mr McEleney, Ms Banghard and Mr McMorrow.  The complainant states that at the meeting Mr McEleney accused her of trying to ruin the agreement to sell the business and he did not want her at the meeting.  Mr McMorrow stated that accusations had been made about the complainant and she had the right to reply to defend herself.  Mr McEleney stated the complainant could remain in the meeting if she kept her mouth shut.

On 30 August 2022 the complainant wrote to Ms Banghard requesting a written statement of the reasons for her dismissal.  The complainant stated that if she did not receive a written statement within fourteen days, she would refer her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

Events After Dismissal

On 21 September 2022 an event was organised to take place on the grounds of The White House.  Solicitors’ letters were sent to stop the event from occurring.  The complainant made herself available to make the organisers aware of the situation.  The complainant states that Mr McEleney told her he had gotten rid of her because she was useless and now, she just had a grudge.

The complainant is very depressed about this situation and is facing financial issues which has added to her stress

The complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed without due process or fair procedures contrary to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act

Legal Submission

The Unfair Dismissals Act embeds procedural fairness into the employment context.  The burden rests solely on the employer to act reasonably and comply with fair procedures.  In an unfair dismissal complaint, the burden of proof is firmly with the respondent.

The complainant cites the decision of the EAT in Hennessy v Read and Write Shop Ltd UD192/1978 as setting out a test of reasonableness in relation to the nature of the enquiry to be carried out prior to a decision to dismiss and the conclusion arrived at by the respondent based on the information resulting from the enquire.

The complainant cited the decision of Flood J n Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd [1997] IEHC 137 concerning procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice to be applied in dismissal cases.  The complainant also cited the decision of Noonan J in Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241 and the Labour Court decision in Panasov v Pottle Pig Farm UDD 1735.

The complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed without due process or fair procedure, there were no grounds justifying her dismissal, no investigation, no disciplinary process, and no right of appeal.

CA-00053808-001

Complaint submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The Unfair Dismissals Act is an act to provide for redress for employees unfairly dismissed from their employment and to provide for the determination of claims for such redress.  The protection of the Act applies to employees.  Section 1 of the Act defines “employee” and “dismissal “as:

“an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment …”

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

Section 2 lists those excluded from the protection of the Act. 

Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides, this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

(a)    an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him

(b)    … (i) …

Section 6 (1), (4) and (6) provides:

6.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee,

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Where an employee has been dismissed the burden of proof usually falls on the employer to justify the dismissal.  In this case the respondent contends that the complainant was never an employee and was not unfairly dismissed.

Therefore, the first issue I must determine is whether the complainant was an employee of the respondent and if she has the protection of the Act.

Evidence of Mr McEleney

Mr McEleney stated that the complainant was never and employee of the respondent.  He knew her family well through her uncle Mr Simon Rutledge and his sister.  It was Mr Rutledge’s sister that asked him to get involved.  He was only interested in purchasing the property.  Mr Rutledge had assured him that the premises had a licence and planning permission, and he took this on trust.  It was intended that Mr McEleney would purchase the property and that Mr Gradica and Ms Rutledge would take a leasehold.

In April 2022 Mr McEleney attended a meeting with Gary Daly and Paul Ferris about the deal and contracts were to be issued the next week.  No contracts were issued.  Later it was discovered that there had been no drinks licence since 2019 and the planning permission had lapsed.

Mr McEleney stated that Ms Rutledge was not an employee and he had not offered a job to Mr Gradica.  The letter to Mr Gradica that was submitted by the complainant was not from him, he had not typed or signed that letter.

Mr McEleney stated that had he been aware that there was no licence and no planning permission he would not have agreed to buy the property.

In response to questions on cross examination Mr McEleney stated that Mr Gradica and the complainant were to set up their own company.  He knew Mr Gradica had experience in hospitality and he was involved in the refurbishment of the bedrooms and installation of a new kitchen.  He stated that the respondent company did not have a lease, but Ms Banghard and he had to get involved in the running of the place as the complainant was not helping.  The complainant had taken away card machines so payments could not be taken, and she had a sign outside removed by her brother.  Mr McEleney repeated that he went into the arrangement on trust. 

He had trusted Mr Simon Rutledge that there was a licence to sell alcohol but in September 2022 it was discovered there was no licence, and they were trading illegally.  He stated he was lied to and the tricked and he had made a big mistake in becoming involved.  The premises had closed before the Covid pandemic and remained closed throughout the Covid restrictions.  It could not open as it was uninhabitable until it was refurbished.

Regarding the meeting of 18 August 2022 Mr McEleney stated he negotiated with Mr McMorrow not with the complainant.  She claimed to represent her uncle Mr Simon Rutledge, but she was never an employee of the respondent company.  Mr McEleney stated that he would never speak to anyone in the manner alleged by the complainant.

Mr McEleney repeated that he was only interested in purchasing property.  He had supplied funds as he thought he was dealing with Mr Simon Rutledge, and he acted on trust.  He repeated he did not dismiss the complainant and that she was not an employee of the respondent.  He had made a bad business decision based on trust.  He had acted reasonably in all the circumstances.

Evidence of Mr Gradica

Mr Gradica stated that he had been in business with Mr McEleney, working on other projects, since 2007.  He worked with the complainant for six months getting the premises ready.  He stated that he did not have an employment contract with the respondent.  There was to be a lease to run the business with the complainant.

The letter submitted by the complainant was not a contract.  It was a letter typed by the complainant so that he could get a PPS number.  He was not employed by the respondent.

Mr Gradica stated that the property had been closed for two years and the whole place needed upgrading.  A new kitchen had to be installed and rooms brought up to acceptable health and safety standards.  That work took six months, there had been a fire in the premises before it closed.  New fire alarms were installed, leaks were fixed, and brought up to standard. 

Mr Gradica stated that the complainant worked hard at the start.  She was working in the best interests of Mr Gradica and herself to get the place ready for business.

Mr Gradica did not know anything about the removal of a sign.

In response to questions on cross examination Mr Gradica stated that he had worked with Mr McEleney on several projects, but he did not work for him as an employee.  He had worked in the hospitality business since 2013 and had worked with Mr McEleney on another property owned by Mr McEleney.

Mr Gradica stated that he moved to Ireland in August 2021.  He still had a business in the U.K.  There was no payment involved while he was doing the work on the premises.  He worked with the complainant to get the premises ready for business, he saw there was potential in the business if it was refurbished and brought up to standard.  He returned to the U.K every two weeks and the complainant looked after the place while he was away.

Mr Gradica stated the intention was to prepare the premises, do what needed to be done, and then have a lease to operate the premises with the complainant.  He would only receive payment when the business was operating.  Mr Gradica stated he never asked for a contract.  He restated that he worked well with the complainant and that she did have their best interests at heart.

Evidence of Ms Rutledge

Ms Rutledge stated that she had worked since she was young and had taken a break when she had her son.  She had worked with her uncle Mr Simon Rutledge in a personal capacity.  She had been the General Manager of The White House, as a third-generation publication.  The pub was part of the St. Margaret’s community for over seventy years.

Ms Rutledge stated that she met with Mr McEleney about the agreement for the premises.  Mr McEleney had asked her to stay on as senior management to help with the transition and help Mr Gradica get the business up and running.

Ms Rutledge stated that there was nothing in writing, but she was assured it was a contract of employment.  She had to hire staff for all areas of the business.

Ms Rutledge stated that Mr McEleney had planned to put up modular houses on the property, down the back.  She had objected as Mr Simon Rutledge had not given permission and there was no planning permission.  Ms Rutledge had also objected to a proposal that would require staff to work over seven days, they worked over six days and were tired.  She confirmed that she had taken the card machines for a short period but returned them. 

The demand to resign was relayed to her by Mr McMorrow following a meeting with Mr McEleney.  Ms Rutledge stated that she became very stressed about the situation and did not want to leave her house. 

Ms Rutledge stated that the premises had closed in 2019 because of a fire.  The premises needed to be refurbished and upgraded but this could not be done.  As a result of the premises being closed the drinks licence needed to be revived not renewed.  It was intended to apply to revive the licence once there was an available court date.  Advice on the licence had been received from Senior Counsel.

In September 2022 an event was organised on the land.  Mr Simon Rutledge did not give permission for such an event.  Ms Rutledge understood that Mr McEleney had given the organisers permission to hold the event.  Gardai attended at the premises.  The organisers did not have a dance licence and the drinks licence was still in the process of being revived. 

Ms Rutledge stated that Mr McEleney had made a complaint to the Gardai about her and her then partner.  She stated that Mr McEleney had barred all members of the Rutledge family from the premises.

Ms Rutledge stated that she started to take a wage from the business in April 2022.  She was appointed as a Director of Banghard Limited around that time.  That appointment was just for the sake of convenience, nothing more.  Mr Gradica was also appointed a Director at that time.

Ms Rutledge stated that after the meeting of 18 August 2022 she had sent an email to Ms Banghard requesting, in writing, the reasons for her dismissal.  Ms Rutledge stated she did not receive a notice of dismissal, there was no investigation, no disciplinary process, no reasons were given for her dismissal, and she did not have a right of appeal.  Mr McEleney told Mr McMorrow that she was to resign but nothing was put in writing.

Ms Rutledge stated that the impact of the dismissal was she suffered stress and anxiety and had physical and mental health problems.

In response to questions on cross examination Ms Rutledge stated that the pub was not open as there was no fire certificate.  Ms Rutledge stated that she did not ask for a contract of employment.

Ms Rutledge stated that in September 2022 when the police arrived on site the licence had lapsed but the process to revive the licence had commenced.  She stated that Mr Gradica was aware of the position with the licence.

Concerning the hiring of staff Ms Rutledge stated that she had hired staff rather then get temporary staff as generally there was a shortage of staff and it was more difficult to get temporary staff.

Ms Rutledge stated that she was not involved in the arrangements between Mr McEleney and Mr Simon Rutledge.  She only became involved in relation to the proposal about a car wash and the container homes as Mr Rutledge had not given permission for either.

Ms Rutledge was asked about the Account Statement from her doctor showing payments for consultations, prescriptions, and blood tests.  She was not required to state the reason for the blood test.  Ms Rutledge stated that she was certified by her doctor as being unfit from work since September 2022, that position continued.

Ms Rutledge stated she had objected to a proposal about serving breakfast because it would require staff to work over seven days a week.  She confirmed that she had removed the card machines in protest at the proposal in May 2022.  However, she returned the card machines after one and a half hours.

Ms Rutledge stated that in July 2022 she had Covid and was unable to attend work.  Ms Banghard and Mr Gradica were away at that time.  She had contacted Mr Gradica in Portugal to tell him she had Covid.  She stated that she had also contacted other staff to tell them she could not be in work.

Ms Rutledge stated that she was asked to resign for no reason.  Her career and reputation were destroyed, and her health suffered.  She had worked for her uncle but there was a fire in December 2019 and the premises had to close, just before Covid.

Concerning the borrowings of the business Ms Rutledge stated that Mr McEleney had provided a float to be used for the business and a loan to Mr Rutledge.  The loan had nothing to do with the proposed purchase price.

On re-examination Ms Rutledge stated she had run the business while Mr Gradica was on leave, but she had Covid in July 2022 and could not attend the premises.

Evidence of Mr McMorrow

Mr McMorrow stated that he acted as an advisor to Mr Simon Rutledge.  Three years ago, Mr Rutledge talked of Mr McEleney being interested in buying the property.

Mr McMorrow stated that Ms Rutledge and Mr Gradica were General Managers in running the business and getting the business open again.

Mr McMorrow stated that he did not know if Ms Rutledge and Mr Gradica were employees.

Finding

A significant issue in this case is the lack of documentation.  It is clear from the evidence of both parties that the complainant was not issued with a contract of employment.  There is a conflict between the parties about the arrangements that were entered into in August / September 2021 and the terms on which the complainant and Mr Gradica commenced working on The White House property.

Ms Rutledge claims she was an employee of the respondent and that her employment commenced in March 2016 when she worked for her uncle Mr Simon Rutledge.  No documents were submitted to support the claim that the complainant had been the General Manager of The White House, but this was not contested by the respondent.  I accept that the complainant had worked as the General Manager of The White House until December 2019.

Ms Rutledge in her own evidence stated that The White House had closed because of a fire in December 2019, before the Covid pandemic restrictions.  The premises remained closed until they were refurbished and opened again in April 2022.  The refurbishment of the premises was possible because Mr McEleney provided the funds for such work.  I accept that Mr McEleney operated based on trust with Mr Simon Rutledge when providing the funds because his long-term aim was to purchase the property.  Mr McEleney in his evidence admitted this was a bad business decision.  The agreement to purchase was not concluded.

The respondent contends that the complainant was never an employee and therefore does not have the protection of the Act.  Ms Rutledge stated in her evidence that she was asked to stay on to help Mr Gradica to get the business up and running.  Ms Rutledge stated she was not to be paid until the business could afford to make payments.  It appears to me to be a very unusual arrangement for an employee to agree to work for no wages for at least six months to get a business up and running and not to have any interest in that business.

Mr Gradica in his evidence stated that he was not an employee of the respondent.  He worked for six months without payment because he was preparing to run the business with Ms Rutledge.  He and Ms Rutledge were operating as General Managers together.

Having carefully considered the submission and evidence presented at the hearing I am not satisfied that the complainant was an employee of the respondent company.  I prefer the evidence of Mr Gradica and Mr McEleney that the arrangement was for Mr McEleney to fund the refurbishment of the premises.  Until the purchase was completed Mr Gradica and the complainant would run the business together.  That arrangement is consistent with the complainant and Mr Gradica being willing to work for nothing until the business was up and running.  The business reopened in April 2022 and at that time both the complainant and Mr Gradica were appointed Directors of the respondent and began to be paid by the respondent.

I accept that Ms Rutledge worked hard to get the premises refurbished.  Mr Gradica in his evidence confirmed that she had worked hard with him on the project.  However, I am not convinced that she would have done so for no payment as an employee with no other interest in the business.  Ms Rutledge worked with Mr Gradica but did not take instructions from him or the other Directors of the respondent.  She was free to source suppliers, open accounts and hire staff without instruction from anyone else.  Based on her own evidence Ms Rutledge effectively shared control of the business with Mr Gradica.

Having carefully considered all the evidence I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the complainant was not an employee of the respondent company.  The protection of the Act applies to “an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment”.  I find that the complainant did not work under a contract of employment.  Therefore, as the complainant does not have the protection of the Act applicable to employees, I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on this complaint.

As I have found that the complainant was not an employee of the respondent and does not have the protection of the Act applicable to employees there is no issue of dismissal to determine, and the issue of redress does not arise. 

The respondent requested that costs should be awarded against the complainant.  There is no provision for an award of costs against any party in a complaint of unfair dismissal.

CA-00053808-001

Complaint submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Having carefully considered all the evidence I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the complainant was not an employee of the respondent company.  The protection of the Act applies to “an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment”.  I find that the complainant did not work under a contract of employment.  Therefore, as the complainant does not have the protection of the Act applicable to employees, I decide I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on this complaint.

Unfair Dismissal

Employee Status