Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alessandra  Vaz Feliciano

Abdelaziz Ahmed and Zainab Ali

Representatives

Eoghan McMahon McGrath Mullan LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00075748-001

25/09/2025

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

CA-00075748-002

25/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075748-003

25/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075748-004

25/09/2025

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

CA-00075748-005

25/09/2025

The complainant was employed as a live in au pair/domestic operative by the respondents from  December 1st, 2024, to April 2nd, 2025.

The complaints arise under the: National Minimum Wage Act 2000, Payment of Wages Act 1991, Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

Ms. Feliciano is a Brazilian national who came to Ireland in early 2024 as an English language student. She is a qualified message therapist with experience and qualifications in that area of work.

She suffered consistent mistreatment during her time working with the respondents, who disregarded their legal obligations as employers.

She became aware that a previous au pair had resigned, and the respondents were looking for a replacement. Having done some cleaning work for the couple she made contact on November 28th  2024, and it was agreed that she would assist the family with childcare and associated household tasks, during set times in the morning and evenings, viz 7am to 8am (to assist children going to school), and 3.30pm to 8pm Monday to Friday; and 10am to 6pm on Saturdays.

This totalled a 35.5 hour week, not including breaks (such as they were). Ms. Feliciano was to stay overnight at the house to facilitate these working hours. The rate of pay per week was a flat €1,600 per month. Ms. Feliciano regularly worked over these hours to facilitate work requests from the respondents.

The engagement lasted only eighteen weeks but had an adverse effect on Ms. Feliciano having been pressured to work in excess of what was agreed or work which was not agreed in advance. She began her move to the house to begin work over on November 30th,  and December 1st.

From the very first Monday at work, she was asked to begin work at 2.30pm (one hour earlier than agreed). She felt she could not refuse as she was residing in the house. Her work on that evening did not conclude until around 10pm.

During her first week, Ms. Feliciano was told that her work would not be limited to work with the two children of the family, but that she would be expected to help prepare dinner, set and clear the dinner table for the family, and to help the mother of one of her employers, who also lived in the property.

At no point were Ms. Feliciano’s agreed hours or duties kept to. She was often required to work on Sundays. Given the regularity of the requests, Ms. Feliciano began staying on a friend’s couch on Saturday evenings so that she would not be in the house and as such not pressured to work on Sundays, or at least that the time she would be asked or expected to work would be later in the evening.

On March 13th,  2025, Mr. Ahmed proposed that Ms. Feliciano sign a contract for seventy hours, at a rate of €1,600 per month. This was not agreed to.

On the last weekend of March 2025, the family moved house from Lucan to Raheny to a four bedroom house. The complainant was directed to pack up the entire house on her own. , She refused to complete this on her own, which resulted in a dispute with Ms. Ali, and she was told to take three days off. Eventually it was agreed that Ms. Feliciano would undertake the move, with others hired to assist her.

The house in Raheny had two bedrooms. Tensions between the employers and Ms. Feliciano became significant, and Ms. Feliciano was directed to take a seven day vacation from the house. On the second day of this time off (April 3rd,  2025) Mr. Ahmed sent a text to Ms. Feliciano dismissing her.

She went to collect her belongings and her final payment (which came to €1,736 including amounts for outlays on kitchen items, and a massage for Ms. Zainab Ali). Mr. Ahmed transferred €1200 and said he would transfer the rest the following week. The final amount of €536 as agreed was not paid. Ms. Feliciano ought to have received notice pay for the week following  April 3rd, 2025.

Ms. Feliciano’s status was that of an employee of the respondents, meeting all relevant criteria set out in the Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status as published by the Revenue Commissioners. Using the five step framework as set out on page 9 of the Code, (details of which were submitted).

The complainant here was contracted to provide service in exchange for a wage,  was hired on a personal basis. There was no suggestion at any point that she could subcontract or otherwise delegate the work assigned. Her hours, the work to be done and the manner in which it was done was set by the employer.

Prior to engagement as au pair, Ms. Feliciano provided housework services to the couple on a time-costed basis (cleaning, childcare, massage) over October and November 2024. This engagement was an entirely separate agreement.

If these three requirements are met, all of the circumstances of the arrangement/agreement/ contract must be considered. In other words, whether its terms  as between the business and the worker, interpreted in the light of the practical/real conditions of engagement (the “factual matrix”) are consistent with a contract of employment, or with some other form of contract having regard, in particular, to whether the arrangements point to the worker working for themselves or for the business/employer.

All factors of the employment matrix, other than the fact that it appears the employers have completely ignored their obligations under law.

Finally, it should be determined whether there is anything in the particular legislative regime under consideration that requires a particular approach to be taken, e.g., a person might be an employee for social insurance purposes but self-employed for employment law or tax purposes.

The first four criteria were endorsed by the Supreme Court most recently in the case of Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza v The Revenue Commissioners IESC 2023 24 at paragraph 253, page 165.

Here, the complainant worked hours as set by the Respondents, was subject to direction and control, provided personal service which was not capable of subcontracting; and was paid a wage set in advance for a service to be provided. She was for all purposes an employee.

The Code of Practice for Protecting Persons Employed in Other People's Homes provides a guide and clarification as to the applicability of various pieces of employment law legislation to employees who work in private dwellings. It  is directly applicable to this set of facts, given the fact of the employment relationship. Sections 1 through 4 of the Code in particular apply.

Under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Respondents were required to provide a written statement of key terms to the complainant within 5 days (Section 3(1A)) and a more comprehensive statement within one month (Section 3(1)).

Section 5.1 of the Code refers:

The employer shall supply to the employee a written statement of terms and conditions of employment, as required under the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 to 2001, setting out clearly the following —

Hours of work, Rates of pay, List of duties, Periods of Annual Leave, Place or places of work

Commencement date Details of rest breaks should be included in the written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

The respondents did not provide any form of statement of terms, within the periods or outside of them. Given the complete lack of any form of adherence to any legislative obligation, the need to ensure that awards following determinations of breaches of employment law ought be dissuasive from such non-adherence, and the intense vulnerability of an employee working within a private home, the award should be the maximum possible under the Act.

National Minimum Wage Act 2000 - Underpayment and failure to respond to notice under Section 24, and Payment of Wages Act claim

The total amount of extra wages which Ms. Feliciano should have been paid were set out below and is calculated through the following four headings.

i.          Agreed hours

The minimum rate of pay which ought to have been paid on the agreed hours, would be as follows. From December 1st to 31st;  at €12.70 per hour; Four weeks At 35.5 hours per week - €450.85 4 x €450.85 = €1,803.40

From January 1st  to 2nd, April 2025 -at €13.50 per hour for 13 weeks, At 35.5 hours per week - €486.3513 x €486.35 = €6,322.55Per the National Minimum Wage then – the amount Ms. Feliciano should have been paid for her agreed hours came to €8,125.95. At the agreed rate of €1,600 per month Ms. Feliciano ought to have been paid €6,400 for her usual agreed work.

In all – at a Minimum Wage rate Ms. Feliciano is due a further amount of:  ​Subtotal - €1,725.95.

ii.            Extra Hours during week

The complainant was forced to work at least one hour extra per day starting in the first week of work. In the December period: 4 weeks x 5 hours extra per week = €254.00 and in the January to April 2nd : 13 weeks x 5 hours extra per week = €877.50

i.    ​Subtotal - 1,131.50

iii.          Extra Hours over weekends (Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays)

In terms of additional work done on weekends, the complainant made a detailed submission on the additional hours worked between December and March.

At the statutory minimum, 8 hours x 12.70 €101.60, 162.25 hours x 13.50 - €2,190.38Subtotal €2,386.47

iv.          Public Holidays

Details were submitted of hours worked on three public holidays on New Year’s Day, St Brigid’s Day and St Patrick’s Day totaling 30.5 hours.  At the statutory minimum, this would amount to €411.75. This gives a total amount owing on a minimum wage basis: €5,655.67

These hours worked are calculated based on analysis of messages kept by Ms. Feliciano and other records. We submit that it is the employer’s duty to keep records of working hours under Section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, and where records are not kept, the burden shifts toward the employer to disprove the employee’s account.

A notice under Section 23 of the Minimum Wages Act was issued on August 14th, 2025, and which has not been responded to and was submitted in evidence.

As these are wages properly payable, these are unauthorised deductions under Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act. Our figures in our initial submission of complaint were overly conservative.

Details of salary payments received were submitted and confirmed in evidence.

In its supplementary submission the complainant added the following.

Clarification of amounts owing under the National Minimum Wage Act

We set out the rates and hours per week worked by Ms. Feliciano in our main submissions. The amounts which Ms. Feliciano ought to have been paid, and the deductions to be set against those, are as follows:

Normal working time (35.5 hours per week) -                   €8,125.95

Extra hours during week (5 hours extra per week) -          €1,131.50

Extra hours worked over weekends (169 hours) -             €2,386.47

                                                                         Sub-total - €11,643.92

Form this may be deducted €6,800 in salary paid and amounts in respect of bed and board totalling €534.57. The figures for value of bed and board are set out in S.I No. 497/2023 (National Minimum Wage Order 2023) and S.I No. 563/2024 (National Minimum Wage Order 2024) and the difference between amount paid/provided and statutory minimum is €4,309.35.

Section 20 of the NMWA sets out the mechanism for the calculation of the average hourly rate of pay of an employee for the purposes of the Act and for disputes.

20.—For the purpose of determining under this Act whether an employee is being paid not less than the minimum hourly rate of pay to which he or she is entitled under this Act in a pay reference period, the gross remuneration of the employee calculated in accordance with section 19 shall be divided by the total working hours of the employee in the pay reference period calculated under section 8.

Pay in this employment was contracted to be paid on a weekly basis, therefore the pay reference period for calculation of hours worked on average per week is one week. Gross remuneration for Section 19 in this matter would include salary (€400) and the value attributed to “board with lodgings” (see values above).

The total working hours of the employee for Section 8 for this matter is the total hours worked, which as per the evidence given can be averaged at 50 hours per week (notes below).

A very close reading the above clause would suggest that a breakdown of effective rates and proper rates should be made for all relevant pay periods under dispute. Given, we submit, that all pay references worked are properly assessable by the Adjudicator in this matter an individual weekly breakdown is not required, and an average can be applied for all pay periods – taking the different calculations for each of 2024 and 2025.

In this matter, the relevant calculations are as follows.

In respect of pay periods in December 2024, €430 per week paid (salary plus Board with Lodgings value), 50 hours worked at €8.60 per hour effective rate. The correct minimum amount to be paid per hour during these periods  should have been €12.70.

In respect of pay periods in 2025 the rate €431.89 per week (salary plus Board with Lodgings value) for 50 hours worked gives €8.63 per hour. The correct minimum amount to be paid per hour during these periods was €13.50

As the effective amounts paid per hour were below the national minimum wage in situ at the time of the work done, the Adjudicator here ought, we submit, to make a direction to the employer under Section 24 for payment of arrears to the employee.

We submit that the figures set out at Section 1 are the appropriate figures to be awarded. The average hours worked are 50 hours per week, based on 35.5 hours contracted work per week, an average of one hour extra per week work day (Monday to Friday) and 10 hours average extra hours per weekend (see submissions for evidence of 169 extra hours worked, over 17 weeks)

Organisation of Working Time Claim  ‘Annual leave

No annual leave was provided for in any sense. A minimum of 40 hours were worked per week and the engagement lasted four months. The number of days owing comes to 6.67 days with 1.67 in December 2025. In respect of this complaint the complainant is due €641.60.

Daily Rest Periods; No proper rest periods were provided under Section 12 of the Act.

Weekly Rest Periods’ No weekly rest period was provided under Section 13 of the Act, for at least 16 of the 19 weeks worked. For all above breaches, given the context and overall disregard shown by the employers as to their obligations – we feel the maximum award under all three headings should be made.

Applying the above authorities, the complainant was clearly an employee, The respondents breached statutory obligations, and the working conditions were intolerable, The complainant was particularly vulnerable as a migrant, with a low level of English, working as an au pair / domestic operative in a private home.

The respondents’ conduct falls squarely within the type of behaviour that employment legislation is designed to prevent.

Summary of Reliefs Sought

The difference between minimum wage and amounts paid per hour worked (including bank holiday pay) - €5,655.67.  This gives a value of annual leave not paid  of €641.60.

There is also an amount due for non-provision of either statements of terms of employment. (Section 3(1A) and Section 3(1)) and finally compensation for non-provision of daily breaks or weekly rest periods (Section 12 and Section 13)

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation (with the assistance of an interpreter).

In particular, she set out the nature and obligations of her employment for the purposes of considering her employment status. She confirmed that she was paid a fixed wage, could not sub-contract her work in any way, her hours were always agreed in advance and that these were determined exclusively by her employer.

She outlined the disrespectful and inconsiderate manner in which she had been treated by her employers and confirmed details about the hours she had worked based on her own records.

In respect of the application of the time limits, it was submitted that due account should be taken of the complainant’s status as a visiting worker, and her poor English language skills, as well as the adverse effect on her pf the experience of working for the respondent.

The complainant was invited to make a supplementary submission to clarify certain matters that arose in the course of the hearing and did so. In relation to the National Minimum Wage it was submitted that the relevant means of calculating the time limit for submitting a claim for adjudication of a dispute and direction to pay in this matter under Section 24 of the Act is set out at Section 24(2)(a)(ii):

(ii) having requested the statement [of average hourly rate of pay per Section 23], has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information,

and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be ...

Section 41(7)(d) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that an adjudicator shall not entertain a complaint if it has been submitted to the Director General outside of a similarly calculated 6 month period.

The complainant in this matter issued a request for a statement under Section 23 on August 14th, 2025 (within the 12 month period allowed under Section 23), and no response to this request was received within four weeks of that letter.

This complaint was filed on September 25th, 2025, within the six month period. As such, all pay periods within this employment are judiciable under the NMWA and WRA.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. However, notification of the hearing and copies of all submissions were sent to the respondent both by the WRC and/or the solicitor for the complainant. No explanation was received for their non-attendance.

The complainant has made five complaints against both named respondents in this case who are a married couple. (There is a parallel identical set of complaints against the wife alone, Ms Zainab Ali, which is addressed in ADJ 64977).

Three of these relate to pay under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 one relates to working hours (OWTA 1997) and finally one relates to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The complainant has acknowledged that the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act is in the alternative to the complaint under the National Minimum Wage Act.

Dates relevant to consideration of the complaints are that the complainant’s employment terminated on April 2nd, 2025, and she referred the complaint to the WRC only on September 25th, 2025. So, the cognisable period, where it applies, runs from March 26th, a matter of only a few days before she quit her employment.

On the other preliminary point, I find on the basis of the oral evidence and the legal submissions that the complainant fully meets the criteria to be considered an ‘employee’ and therefore she does have standing under all the relevant Acts.

It will also be necessary to address any relevant qualifying time limits and where it is, I do so below.

In her evidence and submissions, the complainant’s account of her experience with the respondent was a harrowing one. As noted in her submissions, she was a young guest worker with poor English language skills and especially vulnerable to exploitation.

Our body of employment law has been enacted to protect all those working in Ireland but is especially important to those people who lack the type of support structures that some others may enjoy, or who work in sectors of the economy where they are isolated and without any form of peer support or trade union protection, for example.

The days when people undertaking this type of work were seen as ‘fair game’ for mistreatment as they were in some legal limbo are long gone.

The claim under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000.

The National Minimum Wage is a statutory entitlement, subject only to certain qualifying criteria (which have been met in this case), and an employer not having sought an exemption, likewise not relevant in this case.

Part 5 of that Act uses somewhat different language in referring to ‘Disputes about entitlement to minimum hourly rate of pay’ and does not use the word ‘complaint’ as is more commonly the case in relation to breaches of employment statutes. Section 26 is as follows.

26.—(1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 may contain—

(a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee—

(i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and

(ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute,

(b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within a specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act, or

(c) both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.

Beyond this it has been noted that

‘….Any contract or agreement that was in force [before any application for exemption] and which provides for a less favourable hourly rate for employees than such statutory minimum is modified to provide that the rate of pay is raised to the level of the statutory minimum.

….In other words the Act sets out the basic statutory entitlement of a worker as against his employer as far as rates of pay are concerned.’

Para [12-07] Employment Law in Ireland Cox, Corbett, Ryan, Clarus Press 2009

This language is important  and introduces an important emphasis in the difference between this type of complaint and other complaints made under employment statutes, especially in relation to time limits and issues related to the continuum that might apply in respect of a complaint.

This derives from the fact, that where a contract of employment is in breach of the obligation to pay the national minimum wage then it is void in that respect because no contract may be made for an unlawful purpose or contrary to statute. 

Pay Reference Period for Calculation of Redress

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 falls under the Schedule 5 of Workplace Relation Act 2015. Section 41 (7) (d) of the 2015 Act states:-

“(d) in the case of a dispute relating to the entitlement of an employee under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 , it has been referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on-

(i) the date on which the employee obtains a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period in accordance with section 23 of that Act, 

(ii) in circumstances where that statement is not provided having been requested by the employee to be provided to him or her, the day after the date of expiration of the time within which that statement was required to be provided by the employer in accordance with that section,”

Section 23 (1) of the 2000 Act defines the pay reference period as being the 12 months immediately preceding the request for the statement:-

23.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee may request from his or her employer a written statement of the employee's average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period (other than the employee's current pay reference period) falling within the 12 month period immediately preceding the request.

Therefore, I find the pay reference period for the purposes of redress being the 12 month period from August 15th, 2024; that being the date on which the complainant requested the Section 23 statement from the respondent, and runs to August 16th, 2025; this comprises the entire duration of the complainant’s employment from December 1st, 2024 to April 2nd 2025.

Accordingly I find on the basis of the complainant’s uncontested evidence which is summarised above and set out in detail in the written submissions and her sworn evidence that the complaint succeeds and I award the complainant €5655.67, being the difference between the amount of wages paid and the statutory national minimum wage based on the calculation of her hours worked and the applicable minimum wage..

I find that this disposes of the complaint made under the Payment of Wages complaint as the complainant accepted that it was made in the alternative to the foregoing.

There were two complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the first of these relating to annual leave not given.

First, to address the time limits issue, I find that the complainant’s entitlement to the leave or payment for it persisted up to the date when her employment terminated. On the basis of her evidence that no such leave was given her complaint is well founded and I award her €641.60.

Her second complaint in relation to breaks does, however, come up against the obstacle of statutory time limits. The complainant remained in employment for only a matter of days from the commencement of the cognisable period for such complaints and I find that these complaints are ‘out of time’.

The complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. 1994 is also well founded, again as her entitlement to this persisted until the termination of the employment, and I award the complainant four weeks wages.

Section 26 (1)(c) also empowers me to award ‘reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute’ and I award her €2,500.00.

In summary, the jurisdiction of an Adjudication Officer in section 26, the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 (as amended) has been set out above.

On foot of that authority in respect of complaint CA-00075748-001 I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €5655.67 in respect of arrears due to her under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 and €2,500 in respect of her reasonable expenses.

Complaint CA-75748-002 is not well founded.

Complaint CA-75748-003is well founded and I award and direct the respondent to pay the complainant €641.60.

Complaint CA-75748-004 is not well founded.

Complaint CA-75748-005 is well founded and I award, and direct the respondent to pay the complainant four weeks’ pay in the amount of €1917 (based conservatively on a thirty five and a half hour week)

In respect of complaint CA-00075748-001 I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €5655.67 in respect of arrears due to her under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 and €2,500 in respect of her reasonable expenses.

Complaint CA-75748-002 is not well founded.

Complaint CA-75748-003is well founded and I award, and direct the respondent to pay the complainant €641.60.

Complaint CA-75748-004 is not well founded.

Complaint CA-75748-005 is well founded and I award, and direct the respondent to pay the complainant four weeks’ pay in the amount of €1917.

Minimum Wage, ‘Au Pair’ worker.