Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Christina O’Byrne BL instructed by Ms Meghan McSweeney Bird & Bird Solicitors. 

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003028

21/08/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003029

21/08/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003030

21/08/2024

These matters came before the WRC dated 21/08/2024 as complaints seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The specific disputes fall under the following:

·         disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal;

·          bullying and harassment procedures; and

·         disputes regarding meal allowances of students.

The aforesaid disputes were referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 23/01/2025. 

I received and carefully reviewed a significant amount of documentation from the Complainant in advance of hearing.  The Respondent’s submission was made available on the morning of the hearing. 

The Worker submits he definitely entered into a contract of employment and their work was full time.  The Worker submits he should not have had to sign anything if he was a volunteer.  The Worker’s wife submits that of course she is a worker and she is standing here for all women who work in the home and they (women working in  the home) must surely satisfy the definition of Worker as set out in the Act. 

The Employer submits by way of a preliminary objection that the Worker does not fall within the definition of a worker in section 23 and is therefore precluded from bringing a case to the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. 

The Employer submits the Worker never entered into a contract of employment with the Employer and there is no contract of service that could define him as a worker. 

In conducting my investigation I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction

The Employer submits that the Worker does not have standing to bring this dispute to the WRC and the WRC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this dispute as the Worker does not fall within the definition of a worker as set out in the legislation. 

The definition of “trade dispute” under S. 3 of the 1946 Act, as amended by the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) reads:

“…any dispute between employers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person;

For a dispute to be a trade dispute it must involve a "worker".  The term "worker" is defined by Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as follows:-

“(1) …...means a member of the Garda Síochána referred to in subsection (1A) and any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract with an employer, whether the contract be for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, whether it be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour . . . .”

The Relevant Facts

The Worker and his wife were a host family in a cultural exchange programme whereby they hosted international students in their own home with their own family.  I note the Worker signed a Host Family Agreement which sets out as follows under the heading Host Family Grant Contribution:

“I understand and agree to the host family contribution amount €500 per month set by [redacted].

I understand this amount is a contribution to assist with the related costs of hosting an exchange student and not intended to cover all expenditures.  I understand that the general household costs (food, drink, heating, water, gas/electricity, Wi-Fi etc.) are covered within the grant that is paid from [REDACTED] …”

The Host Family Agreement set out other matters including accommodation; meals; transportation; house rules; household members; communication; home moves; personal data; and personal data processing.  I am satisfied the Worker entered into an agreement with the Employer to provide room and board in his home for students for which he is offered financial support to cover some of the day-to-day costs of hosting a student in his home.  I am unable to conclude the aforesaid agreement falls within the definition of a contract of service even by imputing the most expansive meaning possible to the terms of the aforesaid agreement. 

I am of the view it would be prudent for the Employer to insert a clause in the aforesaid agreement setting out very clearly the parameters of the relationship between the parties for future reference and for the avoidance of any doubt on the exact nature of the relationship between the parties.         

Having considered the submissions of both sides and having regard the Industrial Relations Acts and the definition of “worker” in section 23 of the 1990 Act I do not find that the Worker is a “worker” within the meaning of the legislation. 

I am unable to find that the Complainant falls within the scope of the Act. 

Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to investigate this dispute.   

No jurisdiction; employment status;