Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Carolina Udrea

Future Care Home Care Specialists Limited

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Represented by Management

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00065693-001

29/08/2024

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

CA-00065693-002

29/08/2024

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

CA-00065693-003

29/08/2024

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

CA-00065693-004

29/08/2024

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

CA-00065693-005

29/08/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00065693-006

29/08/2024

The respondent is a company that provides staff to support older people and people with disabilities in their homes.  The complainant is a business graduate with a proficiency in five languages and she has 14 years’ experience of working in business in Romania.  She was looking for similar experience in Ireland and she was interested in working in human resources.  She joined the company on May 7th 2024 as an unpaid intern, working with the HR director, who, like her, is from Romania and who she knew for 20 years.  At the hearing, the complainant said that she accepted the unpaid position because the HR director promised her a job after two or three months.  However, after nine weeks, on July 4th 2024, the complainant was informed by the managing director, Ms Kane, that she would not be offered a job.

In her submission in advance of the hearing, Ms Kane said that, when the HR director took on the complainant as an intern, she did not follow the standard procedure for placing interns.  Ms Kane said that interns are only taken on from language schools, with the objective of providing them with an opportunity to improve their English.  The complainant was not learning English and the HR director had no authority to offer her an internship.  Ms Kane accepted that the complainant was entitled to be paid for the hours that she worked between May 7th and July 4th 2024.  She produced a record of the log-in and log-out times on the computer used by the complainant, apart from her first day in the role, when she used her own laptop.  Ms Kane estimated that the complainant worked for 6.5 hours that day.  Overall, Ms Kane estimated that the complainant worked for 187 hours.  Based on the 2024 national minimum hourly rate of €12.70, Ms Kane submitted that the complainant is entitled to wages of €2,374.90.

The complainant claims that she is entitled to be paid for holidays not taken and that she is entitled to the benefit of the public holiday that fell on Monday, June 3rd 2024.  Ms Kane agreed with this assertion and submitted that the complainant is entitled to 14.96 hours’ holiday pay, amounting to €189.99 and €52.58 for the public holiday.

The complainant didn’t receive a statement of her terms and conditions of employment.  Ms Kane’s position is that the complainant was on an unpaid work experience placement and that she wasn’t an employee.  She said that the purpose of the engagement was for the complainant to gain experience in healthcare recruitment.  She said that the complainant “fully participated in the agreed activities” and that the placement was conducted in good faith to support her professional development.

Under the heading of the Employment Equality Act 1998, the complainant claims that she was discriminated against when, compared to a named German intern who was paid, she didn’t receive any wages.  Ms Kane said that this intern was not paid by her.

Findings and Conclusions

At the hearing of this matter, both parties agreed that the circumstances were unusual.  The complainant was forthright in her evidence that she accepted the assignment with the respondent on an unpaid basis.  She said that the HR director promised her a job after about three months, but when she wasn’t offered a job, she decided that she was entitled to be paid for the hours that she worked.  While the managing director, Ms Kane, has agreed to pay the complainant wages in respect of the hours that she has recorded as having been worked, she disagrees that she was an employee.  Having considered this conundrum, and, as Ms Kane has decided that the complainant should be paid wages and holiday pay, I have decided to proceed on the basis that the complainant was an employee.

Based on this conclusion, I find that the complainant is entitled to the amount stated by the respondent in wages of €2,374.90, holiday pay €189.99 and public holiday pay of €52.58.

The respondent failed to provide a statement in writing to the complainant setting out the terms of her assignment.  Having established this fact, in accordance with section 7(2)(d) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I am required to order the employer to pay compensation of “such an amount (if any) as is just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration…” 

In relation to the final complaint, discrimination on the race ground, the complainant named a Caucasian female as a comparator.  As the complainant is also a Caucasian female, I find that she has not established that, compared to a person of a different race, she was treated less favourably.

CA-00065693-001:  Complaint under the Minimum Wage Act 2000

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant arrears in wages of €2,374.90.

CA-00065693-002:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €189.99 in respect of holiday pay due at the date of the termination of her employment on July 4th 2024.

CA-00065693-003:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €52.58 in respect of her entitlement to be paid for the public holiday that fell on Monday, June 3rd 2024.

CA-00065693-004:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €266.70, equivalent to one week’s pay.

CA-00065693-005:  Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €266.70, equivalent to one week’s pay.

CA-00065693-006:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998

For the reasons I have set out under this heading above, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

In summary, in respect of the total redress awarded, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €3,150.87.  In accordance with s.192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, no element of this award is subject to deductions for PAYE, PRSI or USC. 

Internship, wages, holidays, public holidays, discrimination