Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fionn Shannon

Clare Community Radio Holdings PLC (Name changed by consent)

Representatives

Self Represented

General Manager

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-00068860-001

27/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00068860-002

27/01/2025

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

CA-00069267-001

13/02/2025

The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent on a Workplace Learning Agreement. The Complainant claimed that the Agreement was subject to him being paid, paid the national minimum wage and that minimum notice requirements applied to his engagement. The Respondent denied that the agreement was a contract of employment and none of the Complainant’s claims applied to his engagement. The Complainant commenced the Programme in September 2024 and the arrangement was terminated in January 2025 by the Respondent.

Claim Under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant alleged he was engaged under a contract of employment and was, in substance and in law, an employee of Clare FM during the course of his placement and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 prohibits an employer from withholding or failing to pay wages lawfully due to an employee. The Complainant submitted that the evidence demonstrates he was an employee clearly — through both the Workplace Learning Agreement itself, and the nature of the working relationship as implied by conduct. 

The Workplace Learning Agreement, signed by both parties, set out the nature of the work the Complainant was expected to perform during the placement. It outlines a structured set of duties, expectations, and responsibilities, all of which the Complainant alleged mirror those typically found in employment — including defined working hours, regular deliverables, holidays, and expectations around performance. While it states that the placement was unpaid, Irish law does not permit the waiver of employment rights based solely on language in a document. What matters is the substance of the relationship, not how it is labelled. 

The Complainant alleged it is clear that a contract of employment was implied by conduct. Over the four and a half months the Complainant spent at Clare FM, he worked approximately 24 hours per week producing scripts for two of the station’s weekday programmes and his scripts formed the basis for “Ar An Lá Seo” and the first two hours of “The Time Tunnel”. 

The Complainant alleged this was operationally essential work, as these scripts are a vital foundation on which both programmes are built. Simply put, the scripts he provided the respondent were essential building blocks, without which both programmes could not be made. Somebody had to conduct the necessary research to create these documents, and for the duration of his time at Clare FM that someone was the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that if he did not do this work some else had to.

 Additionally, in January 2025 — after more than four months of unpaid work — Mr. Flaherty offered to pay the Complainant  €600 to continue providing the same “Ar An La Seo” scripts after the Complainants placement concluded.  During cross examination, the respondent characterised this offer as a “good will gesture”. The Complainant rejected this assertion.

In addition to this, many well-established tests for identifying a contract of employment — namely, mutuality of obligation, control, integration, and lack of substitution — were all satisfied in this case. The Complainant set out his views on each of these issues in detail and while some of his submission are credible in isolation it missed the key point of what was the intention of the Parties when they entered the Learning Agreement.  

The ruling in Ollie Murray Greiner v IT Force Ltd (submitted by the Respondent) showed that the complainant was of minimal operational value for the vast majority of his placement and only began contributing meaningfully towards the end. He received initial training, was heavily supervised, and was not given full system access until later in the placement.

In stark contrast, the Complainant stated was of value to Clare FM from the very beginning. From the first week of his placement, he was creating daily scripts for the respondent — forming the foundation of multiple hours of weekday radio. At no point was he trained, closely supervised, or gradually onboarded. He was expected to work independently and to deliver material essential to the station’s output. He did so consistently over four and a half months, from my first day until his last.

Unlike in Greiner, where the intern only became useful to the employer towards the end of their placement, the complainant stated his work was useful throughout — and yet he received no payment. For this reason, the circumstances in this case are fundamentally different from his and he alleged the respondent’s reliance on that case is misplaced.

The Complainant submitted two relevant adjudication decisions under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 to support his claim: Angela Mysliu v A.L. Investments Ltd (ADJ-00029587) and Christian Hyland v At One North Main Ltd (ADJ-00053811).  

In Mysliu, the complainant was allegedly on an unpaid training arrangement, but she consistently attended work, opened and closed the premises, and was scheduled on a roster. Despite the employer’s claim that she was an “intern,” the adjudicator found that she was an employee. He pointed to key factors such as mutuality of obligation, control over hours and duties, and a lack of any contract explicitly displacing those obligations. The complainant was therefore found to be entitled to unpaid wages under the Act.

 Similarly, in Hyland, the complainant originally began his work as part of a university work placement but later continued contributing to the employer’s operations informally and without pay. The adjudicator found that the complainant's presence was relied upon, and that there was ambiguity on the part of the employer about the nature of the arrangement — ambiguity which the employer, being in a position of dominance, had a duty to clarify. This mirrors my case directly. The Complainant stated the work he undertook was real, operational, and continuously used in the daily broadcasts of Clare FM.

 2. Claim under Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 entitles every employee to receive the applicable statutory minimum hourly rate. As he was over the age of 20, the Complainant stated he was entitled during the relevant period to the full adult minimum wage of €13.50 per hour. 

The Act defines a contract of employment broadly as “any contract whereby an individual agrees to perform personally any work or service for another person or a third party.” The law makes no exemption for unpaid internships, student placements, or informal working arrangements. In fact, the Workplace Relations Commission itself provides explicit guidance that: 

“National minimum wage rates apply to work experience placements, work trials, internships and any other employment practice involving unpaid work or working for room and board, regardless of the duration of the engagement… The right to receive the minimum wage cannot be waived in a contract as any provision in an agreement to do so is void as a matter of law.” 

Apart from close family members and registered industrial apprentices, no category of worker is excluded from the protections of this Act. The fact that my placement was described as “unpaid” in the Workplace Learning Agreement is therefore legally irrelevant.

Furthermore, I took the necessary procedural step under Section 23 of the Act to formally request a written statement of my pay and hours. Mr. Flaherty did not respond to this request.  This failure to respond to a lawful Section 23 request is itself a matter of concern, and further supports the credibility of my claim. The law is clear: unpaid work of the kind performed is not exempt from the statutory minimum wage. The work was real, operational, and done for the direct benefit of Clare FM. The Complainant stated he was entitled to be paid at a rate of €13.50 per hour, and Clare FM’s failure to pay him constitutes a clear and ongoing breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000.

 3. Claim Under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides that an employee who has been in continuous service with an employer for 13 weeks or more is entitled to at least one week’s notice of the termination  their employment. Consequently, under the Act, the Complainant was entitled to at least one week’s notice before the termination of his working relationship. The complainant stated his  placement ended abruptly and without any formal notice following a brief email exchange he had with Mr. Flaherty in January 2025, during which he raised concerns about the large volume of work he was being asked to complete.

There is no mutuality of obligation, no contract of service, and no evidence of any intention to create legal relations of employment between the parties. The arrangement was clearly and solely academic in nature, structured in line with the educational objectives of the Complainants course and with no offer or expectation of remuneration.

The Complainant claims that “the university’s involvement in this arrangement was minimal to the point of irrelevance.” This assertion is completely inaccurate and omits key facts.

The Complainant would not have been accepted for this internship had it not been for a phone call from one of his lecturers at the University of Galway, who contacted Padraic Flaherty directly to request that Clare FM consider accommodating the Complainant  for placement. At that time, Clare FM had already filled its student internship quota for the academic year and had no available space. It was only after this specific and personal appeal from the university that an exception was made.

This direct involvement by a course lecturer clearly demonstrates that the placement was academic in nature and facilitated by the university. Furthermore, when issues arose with the Complainant  in October 2024, it was the University of Galway that intervened and requested Clare FM to give him a second chance to complete the placement. This is not the type of action that occurs in a standard employee-employer relationship, rather, it reflects the university’s active and ongoing role in managing and supporting the Complainant ’s academic internship.

It is important to note that the Complainant  was more than willing to accept the university’s support during this intervention. For him to later dismiss their role as “minimal” is contradictory and misleading. 

He omits this critical October episode in his submissions but did agree this situation occurred in our initial hearing, despite it being a defining moment that further reinforces the educational nature of the arrangement.

The University of Galway was directly involved at every stage of the Complainant ’s placement, before, during, and after. They arranged the opportunity through direct intervention, defined the terms through a formal academic agreement, intervened when issues arose, and remained in contact even after the placement concluded. This level of involvement is wholly inconsistent with the Complainant ’s claim that the relationship constituted employment. From the outset, it was a university-supervised internship, something the Complainant  formally acknowledged by signing the university-issued agreement.

Operational Work vs. Learning Experience

We reject the claim that the Complainant ’s activities, such as compiling screenshots from newspapers, constitute evidence of an employment relationship. These are basic standard tasks interns are given in media settings and form a legitimate part of learning through practical experience.  If this had been an employment situation, the level of activities carried out by the Complainant  would have fallen well below what would be considered acceptable for a paid position.

The Complainant  signed the university-issued learning agreement and was fully aware that the internship was unpaid, something he has acknowledged to the WRC on multiple occasions.

Clare FM provided appropriate oversight, training, feedback, and flexibility throughout. There were no formal appraisals, disciplinary processes, or productivity targets, key features of an employment relationship. This was, at all times, a student internship focused on education and skills development.

The Nature of Termination

The Complainant 's claim that the end of his placement was retaliatory, disciplinary, or employer-like is unfounded and misleading. The placement concluded professionally and without any punitive action. There was no dismissal, because the Complainant  was never an employee.

Over the course of the internship, the Complainant  repeatedly arrived late and on several occasions failed to turn up entirely without informing anyone. Clare FM explicitly asked him to communicate if he was going to be late, complete his duties from home, or unable to attend, requests he agreed to multiple times but repeatedly ignored. This behaviour clearly reflects the nature of a student internship. Had this been an employment arrangement, such conduct would have triggered formal disciplinary procedures. No workplace would tolerate unexplained absences from an employee.

The Complainant ’s conduct and the manner in which the placement concluded both reinforce the fact that this was an educational internship, not an employment relationship.

It is also incorrect to suggest that the university should have been consulted in advance. This was a voluntary and flexible learning placement, not a contract of employment. The university was appropriately informed once the placement had concluded.

Misapplication of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000

The Complainant  relies on WRC website guidance to argue that all internships must be paid. However, the guidance, and the Act itself, applies only where a contract of employment exists. Irish law is clear that a genuine educational placement, structured and unpaid by agreement, does not constitute employment.

We refer to Ollie Murray Greiner v IT Force Ltd (ADJ-00035495), where the WRC determined that an unpaid placement, carried out under university oversight, did not create employment rights. In contrast to the cases cited by the Complainant , such as Angela Mysliu, our arrangement involved no job advertisement, no employment contract, and no wages. 

It was clearly defined from the outset as a non-contractual learning opportunity, as confirmed by the completed and signed learning agreement submitted by the Complainant .

Allegation of Exploitation

We categorically reject the accusation that Clare FM exploited the Complainant  in any way. His internship was arranged solely at the request of one of his lecturers, who personally intervened to ask if we could accommodate an unpaid placement. To be clear, the initiative for the Complainant ’s internship came from the college, not from the Complainant  himself, contrary to what he stated during the WRC hearing.

The Time Tunnel show which the Complainant  contributed to has been running for several years. We had staff in place to carry out the necessary work before the Complainant  arrived, and it has continued seamlessly since his departure. By no means was his role critical to the operation.

The suggestion that Clare FM used the Complainant ’s work for operational gain while denying him compensation is both untrue and unsubstantiated. His placement was arranged to benefit him as a student, not the station. His attendance was irregular, he frequently worked remotely, and much of his activity was unsupervised, none of which aligns with the expectations or obligations of an employee.

Clare FM has a long-standing and good-faith relationship with several academic institutions, including the University of Galway. Many interns have successfully transitioned into paid roles with us, not because they claimed entitlement during their internships, but because they engaged fully, built relationships, and gained valuable, real-world experience.

On-Air Credit Was Given and Proven

In The Complainant ’s initial final submission, he stated: “This was never a dispute I sought. I would not have pursued this case had Clare FM simply credited my work.” Yet despite this claim, and despite Clare FM supplying multiple on-air recordings clearly crediting the Complainant  for his contributions, he has continued to pursue this case.

In the Complainant ’s closing statement he included: “I often received no on-air credit, despite raising the issue multiple times and even after it was verbally agreed to.”  This is demonstrably false. Clare FM provided the WRC and the Complainant  with audio evidence where he was credited by name on-air for his involvement in the Time Tunnel show. These recordings were part of our official submission.

The Complainant  listened to this material prior to finalising his closing statement, yet he chose to repeat the inaccurate claim that he was not credited. This undermines the credibility of his overall submission and demonstrates a willingness to disregard clear, verifiable evidence in order to support a narrative that does not reflect the facts.

Sudden Termination Claim Misrepresents the Facts

The Complainant  states: “I was suddenly terminated without notice, despite working continuously for more than 13 weeks.” This is misleading and incorrect. 

First, there was no employment relationship in place, therefore, no legal entitlement to notice applied. The internship was unpaid, flexible, and governed by an academic learning agreement, not an employment contract.

The Complainant ’s attendance during the placement was irregular. He frequently worked remotely without prior approval, behaviour inconsistent with employee obligations. His placement was never subject to the structures or expectations of formal employment.

Framing the Placement as “Labour” Ignores the Educational Agreement

In the learning agreement, the Complainant  identified the areas of learning he wished to pursue and signed, we structured the placement accordingly to support those goals.

The Complainant  now claims that his contribution amounted to “labour” rather than learning. This is simply untrue. He voluntarily signed a Work Placement Learning Agreement that clearly outlined the unpaid, educational nature of the internship, an agreement approved and endorsed by the University of Galway.

If this were genuinely a case of “labour,” then by any standard, his performance would have been wholly inadequate. His productivity fell well below what would be expected of any employee. His attendance was irregular, and on multiple occasions, he failed to show up without any notice or approval, behaviour that clearly does not reflect the standards or responsibilities of an employment relationship. 

Furthermore, the Complainant  made little to no effort to engage with colleagues, gain insight into how the station operates, or benefit from the professional experience around him, key elements that students embrace on internship.

The flexible structure, lack of contractual obligations, and the absence of employee rights or entitlements all point clearly to what this was: an academic placement, not an employment relationship.

Overall

The Complainant ’s closing statement is marked by selective interpretation, omission of key evidence, and multiple factual inaccuracies. In his initial final statement, he claimed, “I would not have pursued this case had Clare FM simply credited my work.” 

His work was credited, a fact supported by audio evidence previously furnished to him. Despite this, the Complainant  continues to pursue the claim, clearly demonstrating a shifting and inconsistent position. His continued reliance on arguments already disproven undermines the credibility of his overall case.

The Complainant  voluntarily entered into a university-supervised internship and agreed to the Learning Agreement, personally inputting the terms he sought. Clare FM honoured that agreement, and at all times the arrangement remained an unpaid academic placement.

Clare FM submitted the following:

•        The Complainant  was not an employee.

•        The placement was clearly defined, mutually agreed, and carried out as a voluntary, unpaid academic internship.

•        There was no mutuality of obligation, no entitlement to pay, and no contractual terms consistent with employment.

•        The tasks performed were educational in nature and aligned with the university's requirements.

•        The university provided oversight throughout, further supporting its academic framework.

•        The Complainant ’s claims rely on subjective assertions rather than any established legal basis or factual evidence.

•        If the WRC were to determine that the Complainant  was in fact an employee, such a decision would set a concerning precedent with potentially severe consequences for internships across all sectors, undermining the legitimacy of educational placements.

For these reasons, the Respondent requested that the adjudicator dismiss the Complainant ’s complaint in its entirety and uphold the lawful and educational nature of this placement.

The core of this complaint is decided by the nature of the signed agreement between the parties and what the intent of the parties was when they entered into the Workplace Learning Agreement. If the intent of the parties was to enter into an employment relationship with compensation involved then this would/should have been set out in a terms of an employment contract. It was not.  The Learning Agreement made no reference to compensation of any kind other than it being unpaid and had learning objectives in it rather than duties, It was also drawn up as a standard template by the University of Galway as part of a BA in Journalism course. It bares no similarities to an employment contract. The Respondent engaged with the University when the issue of compensation was brought up by the complainant and the University confirmed to the Respondent that the placement was an unpaid one and that the Complainant was aware of this

There is no dispute that the Complainant contributed to the work of the Respondent for around four months and he seems to have had/taken upon himself a degree of flexibility as to contributing from home and his hours. However, the relationship became difficult and was terminated some months early by the Respondent. There is no evidence that the Complainant raised the issue of compensation or his employment status with the Respondent during his time with the Respondent. He submitted his WRC complaint the day he was terminated.

Given the fundamental contractual term of compensation is missing from the Learning Agreement it is safe to assume the agreement was not intended to be an employment related one which required payment of compensation. Indeed, the agreement states it is unpaid. This is fundamental to the status of the agreement. While the Complainant has set out his view as to why he was an employee . he misses the fundamental point that what the parties intended was not an employment relationship when they entered into the agreement and even if it  developed elements of one (in parts) where the Complainant was contributing well to the output of the Respondent, this it could be argued was the core purpose of the learning placement. It is an expected outcome of a work/learning placement that some type of work would be produced or contributed to.  I do not see any logic in analysing the individual detail of the Complainants case that the arrangement developed elements of an employment contract when the fundamental contractual elements of intent and compensation was never intended by the Respondent (or the Complainant) at the commencement or during the arrangement,  never formed part of the signed Learning Agreement and no issue was raised during the course of the learning period regarding being an employee and being compensated.  It seems the Complainant had more issue, for most of the time, with being recognised for his work rather that compensation. It would be unreasonable for me to hold that the Respondent had entered into an employment relationship when quite clearly that was never its intention or it never operated in its dealings with the Complainant under that guise. Intent and agreed consideration are fundamental issues to be considered in a contractual relationship. It is on these fundamental issues that the complaint fails: there was no intent to form an employment relationship and as a consequence no consideration agreed at the commencement of the relationship or during the relationship.

The Complainant set out two cases which he alleged supported his case. However in Angela Mysliu v A.L. Investments Ltd (ADJ-00029587) there was no contract of any nature and the Complainant was engaged in unpaid training for two weeks andthen was to become (and did become) a paid employee.  This differs substantially from the Complainants circumstances.

In Christian Hyland v At One North Main Ltd (ADJ-00053811), the circumstances were also different to the circumstances of this case. The internship had finished and Mr. Hyland had worked for a week after that and been paid for that week. The dispute then concerned his continued engagement for 8 weekends afterwards where the Complainant had a legitimate expectation that he would be paid pro rata to the week he was employed and was not paid.

The provision of opportunities for students to gain workplace experience is a critical part of learning in the workplace environment. The University was involved in setting up the learning arrangement as part of its course and maintained contact during the Learning experience.  In general, in some cases students are paid and in others they are not, depending on the circumstances of the situation. Work placement for a student can be different to a Learning Agreement and the difference is noted by the type of contract signed with Work placement normally including a clause of compensation. The arrangement is normally clarified at the start of the work experience.

There is no doubt the Complainant contributed to the work of the Respondent and has, from the observation of the Adjudicator with regard to his tenacity and the detailed way he communicated and presented his case as a lay complainant, has a bright future in journalism. However, providing this exposure to work could be argued was the very purpose of the Learning Agreement.

I deem the complaints to be not well founded on the basis the Complainant was not an employee. Once the complaint fails on this primary issue then all three claims must fail as a result.

With regard to complaint number CA-00068860-001 I deem the complaint to be not well founded.

With regard to complaint number CA-00068860-002 I deem the complaint to be not well founded.

With regard to complaint number CA-00069267-001 I deem the complaint to be not well founded.

Payment of Wages