Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Christian  Hyland

At One North Main Limited                          trading as The Neighbourhood

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

 Tom McGrath Owner/Director

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00065772-001

03/09/2024

This matter was heard over the course of two days by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.  I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski  -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.  I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 3rd of September 2024.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of all the evidence and submissions that I have considered. Any matter not specifically addressed has is deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”. 

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. The Evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he is owed wages for an eight-week period from June 2024 to August 2024. He says his salary is being unlawfully withheld.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent entity was represented by a number of witnesses including the owner, a manager and a Chef. All the witnesses gave evidence on Affirmation. The Respondent witnesses were questioned and/or contradicted by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unlawful deduction or retention of the Complainant’s salary. The Respondent disagrees that the Complainant was an Employee and asserts that the Complainant was an invitee onto the premises for the purpose of training and upskilling.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced over the course of two days herein.

There can be no doubt that the Complainant was initially introduced to this particular workplace through a programme of Internship organised through the Technical University of Dublin wherein the Complainant was doing a course in Culinary Arts.

The Internship lasted for one month from April to May of 2024.

Sometime after the completion of this phase of work, the Complainant was invited to work for a week with the same Restaurant at the Taste of Dublin Festival wherein the Respondent Restaurant had taken a pitch. The Complainant gladly got stuck into a week of work for which he was paid €700.00.

From this point the relationship between the parties is not clear with each party asserting something to which the other disagrees.

The Complainant says he was invited to work weekends in the kitchen of the Restaurant for the rest of his summer Holidays. The Complainant was glad of the work and also with the chance to further upskill himself in this busy successful kitchen. The Complainant says he fully expected to get paid for the work he did. The Complainant gave evidence that over an eight-week period he worked fifteen hours a week at a rate of €11.43 per hour. The Complainant says he was therefore owed €1,371.00 at the end of the eight weeks.

Three witnesses for the Respondent vehemently denied that the Complainant was kept on as an Employee with an expectation to be paid. It was their understanding that the Complainant had agreed with Mr. McG, the owner, that the Complainant was welcome to come back on weekends to observe how things worked in a busy kitchen service. The hope was that somewhere down the road that an opening would open to take the Complainant on as an Employee. MrMcG was adamant that the Complainant was free to turn up or not turn up as his own diary allowed. There was no reliance placed, he said, on the Complainant’s presence and when he was there, the Complainant was obliged to step back and observe and be taught.  The Chef witness, very fairly, did agree that the Complainant might do odd jobs and might occasionally peel potatoes or fetch something from the fridge.

The Complainant seemingly started looking for remuneration for his efforts in and around the end of August 2024. He says he was doing more than shadowing the permanent staff and that he was chopping and prepping, making sauces and generally performing all sorts of tasks. The Complainant says he stayed back to clean up at the end of Service and was doing way more than just standing there as was being suggested. He even, he said, wore the chef outfit. The Complainant was (and is) deeply aggrieved when it became clear that the Respondent did not intend paying him for the work and tasks he believed he had performed.

It is very unsatisfactory that a situation such as this ever arose in the first place. The Complainant is a young student with very little control or expectation over what might seem reasonable in terms of training and working.  The Respondent is a reputable and a busy Restaurant with a large staff. The Complainant was happy to be allowed to continue after his initial intern programme had finished. I am not satisfied that it was made abundantly clear to the Complainant that his presence on the premises was as a student of the Culinary Arts, and not as a kitchen hand. I am further not satisfied that it was made abundantly clear to the Complainant that there was no intention of paying him for his efforts. I think there has to have been an onus on the Respondent staff or owner to make that clear from the start. Otherwise, the Respondent runs the risk of seeming to be exploitative – a view seemingly taken by the Complainant’s father. The Respondent must, I believe, take the blame for any ambiguity that might have arisen. The Respondent was in the dominant position and held all the cards form the point of view of the aspiring chef.

The Complainant provided me with no evidence of the hours he worked, and the Respondent disagreed with the numbers of weeks and hours that the Complainant asserted he was on the premises. My direction as to payment reflects this fact.

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

CA-00065772-001 -  The complaint herein is well founded and I direct that the Respondent does pay to the Complainant a sum of €650.00.