Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Moore

Ballyfermot United SSC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00064804-001

17/07/2024

This is a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. But as will be clear from the narrative below, the actual dispute between the parties relates to the payment of a bonus claimed to be due to the complainant but disputed by the respondent.

By way of a preliminary matter, the complainant’s employment status was clarified to establish whether he was eligible to receive a statement under the Act.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

He was appointed Senior Football Manager from September 2021 until June 2024 and was paid a sum of €500 monthly to manage the Senior Football Team. As part of this appointment and an agreement with the club Chairman and a BoardMemberhe wastobepaidaPromotional Bonusof €1000.00iftheteamweretobepromoted.

This was achieved in 2022 and again in 2023 and should have resulted  in a combined bonus of €2000.00.

He was told this bonus would be paid, but it was never paid. In June 2024 He was dismissed as Senior Team Manager.

He stated that he was initially told that he would be given a three-year contract, but this was terminated without notice, and without paying him the bonus due to him.

Christopher Spellman, an officer of the club gave evidence on affirmation.

He stated that the complainant’s contract was on a ‘year to year’ basis, not a three-year contract.

Stephen Quinn also gave evidence on affirmation.

He attended the meeting at which the complainant was recruited to the role He stated that the discussion with the complainant was about a one year, possibly renewable contract. Both witnesses stated that there was never any commitment to pay a bonus.

Two things are clear from the  evidence in the case.

The first is that the dispute between the parties is actually about the bonus that the complainant asserts was promised. The respondent’s evidence was that no such commitment to pay a bonus was ever made.

The second is that this was not the dispute that was referred to the WRC, nor is there any jurisdiction to intrude in that argument about the bonus.

The complaint that was referred to adjudication was that the complainant had not been given a statement of his terms of employment as required by the Act.

However, it is not in dispute that the nature of the complainant’s contract was a contract for services, although there is some dispute about the precise duration of it, and the manner in which it was terminated, (not an unfamiliar occurrence in the world of football management, in which job security and tenure can be fragile.)

Section 1 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 restricts its application to those employed on a contract of employment, i.e. on a contract of service.

Accordingly, as neither party disputes the fundamental nature of the engagement as a contract for services, and as that is the only issue I have jurisdiction to determine, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-64804-001 is not well founded.

Employment Status