Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Trainee

A Traineeship provider

Representatives

Self-represented 

James Power, Manager

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00065380-006

11/08/2024

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

CA-00065380-007

11/08/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00065380-008

11/08/2024

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

CA-00065380-001

11/08/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00065380-002

11/08/2024

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

CA-00065380-003

11/08/2024

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

CA-00065380-004

11/08/2024

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

CA-00065380-005

11/08/2024

The Complainant commenced his traineeship with the Respondent on 20 February 2023.

On 11 August 2024, the Complainant referred his claims to the Director General of the WRC.

The Respondent rejects the claims and asserts that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent.

Summary of the Respondent’s case on the preliminary matter

Background to the Aircraft Maintenance Traineeship

This traineeship started in 1989 between what was FAS, at the time, and Shannon Aerospace. The purpose of the traineeship is to train unemployed people or job changers in the skills and knowledge required to maintain aircraft. The certification attainable from this course is the Category A licence subject to successful completion of assessments and required practical tasks. The training is divided into theory and practical. The theory element for the Category A licence is a minimum duration of 800 hours, to be carried out in an EASA approved Part 147 School. The practical element requirement is a minimum of one-year experience on operating aircraft in an EASA approved Part 145 maintenance facility. As both elements of the training must take place in an approved 147 school and an approved 145 maintenance facility, the whole of the traineeship takes place in a named aviation organisation. Some learners can opt to do there practical training element with a different named organisation. On successful completion of both elements, the trainee can apply to the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) for their category A licence.

Currently the named host aviation organisation is approved to deliver the training element in their school, the practical element can be delivered by either of the two named organisations. In most cases, on successful completion of the course, the two organisations offer contracts of employment to the trainees. In some cases, an offer of a contract of employment will be made even if the trainee has outstanding assessments.

The course requires successful completion of fifteen modules and various practical exercises, also, the course is expensive to deliver and requires a commitment from applicants to undertake the course. The course runs, subject to availability of suitable applicants and funding.

The course duration is set at 119 weeks since 2016, with exceptions for Covid and additional training requirements. The reason for the duration of 119 weeks is to allow for repeat assessments, study for repeats, annual leave, various personal leave, periods where aircraft may not be available for training. During summer months passenger aircraft are not usually scheduled for maintenance and repair. This can result in lull periods in the practical training.

The course starts at 8:30am and finishes at 3:45pm Monday to Thursday and finishes at 1:45 on a Friday. When trainees move to the practical training element of the course they start at 8.:0am and finish at 4:30pm as per the shift hours in the operating aircraft maintenance hangar, with a 3:45pm finish on a Friday. Applicants are made aware of this during a briefing, prior to commencement.

Over the duration of this programme, trainees are entitled to take annual leave and have an allocation of 35 days in total plus all Christmas and Easter closures and all bank holidays. This course is a SOLAS funded course, and trainees are eligible for a training allowance if they are in receipt of a social welfare payment. During the recruitment process for the course, it is made clear to the applicants that training allowances can only be paid if they are currently in receipt of a social welfare allowance. In addition, a travel / accommodation allowance and meal allowance are paid, if applicable, according to the national rates.

Advertising and Registration for the Traineeship

All the courses are advertised on fetchcourses.ie. Application for the course are submitted through fetchcourses.ie. Applicants then go through a recruitment process that includes a briefing session, interview, and aptitude test. Successful applicants must also undertake a medical and security check.

At the briefing session and again at the interview, it is made clear to applicants that they will only receive a training allowance if they have a claim with social welfare. The amount of the Training Allowance will match the social welfare entitlement. In some cases, participants on the course will not receive a training allowance as they do not have a claim with social welfare. It is also made clear the time requirements of the course and the commitment required. These two points are stressed to ensure, in so far as is possible, that participants are prepared to stay in the course.

In relation to the Complainant’s claim

The Complainant applied and was successful in gaining entry onto a SOLAS funded training course on Aircraft Maintenance. The Complainant was entitled to and received a training allowance in lieu of his social welfare payment as per his Training Allowance Entitlement Form F103. The Complainant was not an employee of either the Respondent or the host organisation.

The Complainant was aware that the programme was funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) and was willing to forego any payment as stated in an email from him dated 2 October 2023. At that time, he would also have been aware of the duration of the programme, and the allowance was not an issue for him as per his email.

When the Complainant moved to the practical training element of the course, he encountered difficulties with the time requirements and stated this in the emails he sent to the host organisation. Unfortunately, the Respondent is not in a position to pay a trainee more than what they are entitled to on their F103 form. The Complainant used language in his emails such as ‘exploitation’ and ‘slave labour’, which in the Respondent’s opinion is unwarranted.

The Training Officer and the Manager Contracted Training arranged a meeting with the Complainant to discuss his issues and to ask him to desist from using such language. This meeting was held in person on 29 January 2024. The Complainant was adamant in his view that the course was a form of slave labour and that he was been subjected to exploitation. The Respondent pointed out to him that the allowance, work hours and the nature of the work were conditions of the training course and that the training course facilitated him in achieving his category A qualification on aircraft maintenance which is internationally recognised and would greatly increase his employment opportunities. The Respondent urged him to adjust to the requirements and engage with the training. He responded that he would consider his position.

Two days later, the Respondent received an email from the Complainant saying he wished to be suspended from the course and requested that a neutral party review the case. The Respondent referred him to the Office of the Ombudsman and again urged him to engage with the course. Again, it is not in the Respondent’s remit to pay a training allowance to someone who is not in attendance other than for approved time off. The ESF audit the Respondent on this element of attendance and allowance entitlements.

It was brought to the Respondent’s attention on 6 February 2024 that the Complainant had not re-joined the course. The Manager emailed him and informed him that he must engage with the course or the Respondent would have to terminate him from the course.

On 12 February 2024, as the Complainant had not returned to training and had not contacted the host company, the Manager informed the Complainant that he was terminated from the course. The attendance procedures require a learner absent from a course to contact the trainer as soon as possible, failure to do so within three days can lead to termination from the course.

On 27 March 2024, the Complainant emailed the Manager looking for a contract for the traineeship, the Manager replied on 4 April 2024 that there was no contract for the traineeship.

At the adjudication hearing, the Manager stated that the Complainant was in receipt of job seeker’s benefit from the Department of Social Protection. If an applicant is in receipt of social welfare benefits, the Respondent receives a relevant form from the Department confirming same. The Respondent is precluded from making any additional payments to an applicant other than a small travel and subsistence payment (T&S). The Manager submitted that the Complainant might have received some T&S payments.

The Manager said that at induction, the applicants are informed of the terms and conditions of the course. They have to complete the course during which they are subject to assessments. The Complainant did quite well in these.  The participants then move to a hangar floor. On the completion of the course, the participants can apply to the Irish Aviation Authority for a licence.

The Manager emphasised that the Complainant was not an employee. He was a trainee in receipt of a training allowance as stipulated by the Department of Social Protection. On the completion of the course, the participants can register again with the Department of Social Protection or, if successful, apply for a job. The Manager said that all eight participants of the course the Complainant attended were employed after its completion.

Summary of the Complainant case on the preliminary matter

The Complainant did not dispute that he was not an employee of the Respondent. He confirmed that he was a trainee.

At the hearing, the Complainant expressed his great respect for the Respondent. He stated that his difficulties and concerns were with the set up and the requirements of the course itself. He stated that the course could be improved. He said that he was “talking for everybody, not only for [himself]”.  The Complainant said that people have families, and they should be paid for the time they put into the course.

Conclusion of the Adjudication Officer on the preliminary matter

The definitions of an “employee”, “employer” and “contract of employment” vary in the legislation.  I will, therefore, address the preliminary matter of whether the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent separately below.

The Complainant asserts that he did not receive the terms and conditions of employment as laid down by an Employment Regulation Order (‘ERO’).

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he did not fall within the definition of an Employment Regulation Order.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was on a traineeship which is a form of learning that combine class-based learning with on-the-job training, in this case in an aircraft maintenance. The certification that is available, on successful completion of the course, is a category A licence issued by the Irish Aviation Authority. This required successful completion of fifteen modules and various practical exercises, which must be signed off by an appropriate supervisor. As such participants on the course are trainees and are not qualified. On successful completion of the traineeship, the host company and other aircraft maintenance and repair organisations can and have offered contracts to the graduates.

The traineeship that the Complainant was on, recently finished and the course participants were offered and have taken up offers of employment with local maintenance and repair organisations.

As such course participants are in training and not in employment when participating on the course, they would have not received terms and conditions of employment.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he was a trainee and was not covered by an Employment Regulation Order either for the contract cleaning industry, security industry and/or early leaning and childcare sector.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive a statement of his core terms in writing.

At the hearing the Complainant stated that he asked for his terms and conditions in writing and did not receive same. The Complainant agreed that he was not an employee of the Respondent but a trainee.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was on a traineeship which is a form of learning that combine class-based learning with on-the-job training, in this case in an aircraft maintenance. The certification that is available, on successful completion of the course, is a category A licence issued by the Irish Aviation Authority. This required successful completion of fifteen modules and various practical exercises, which must be signed off by an appropriate supervisor. As such participants on the course are trainees and are not qualified. On successful completion of the traineeship, the host company and other aircraft maintenance and repair organisations can and have offered contracts to the graduates.

The traineeship that the Complainant was on, recently finished and the course participants were offered and have taken up offers of employment with local maintenance and repair organisations.

As such course participants are in training and not in employment when participating on the course, they would have not received terms and conditions of employment.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, as amended sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written format. 

The Act provides the following definitions.

“contract of employment” means—

(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, or

[(b) any other contract whereby—

(i) an individual agrees with another person personally to execute any work or service for that person, or

(ii) an individual agrees with a person carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act 1971 to do or perform personally any work or service for another person (whether or not the other person is a party to the contract),]

whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;

“employee” means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer; and for the purposes of this Act a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a member of the Garda Siochána or the Defence Forces) or otherwise as a civil servant, within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956, shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or Government, as the case may be, and an officer or servant of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014), a harbour authority, the Health Service Executive or an education and training board shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority, Executive or board, as the case may be;

“employer”, in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “contract of employment” is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual's employer;

At the hearing the Complainant agreed that he was not an employee of the Respondent but a trainee.

Traineeship is a programme of structured training that combines learning in and education and training setting and in the workplace. They are run by the Education and Training Boards (ETBs) in conjunction with industry representative bodies and employers.

Traineeship programme offers a structured blend of classroom-based learning and practical workplace experience. Its primary objective is to enhance participants' employment prospects and support successful recruitment into industry roles.

Participation in the programme is free of charge and is co-funded by the Irish Government and the European Social Fund. Individuals who are in receipt of certain social welfare payments—such as Jobseeker’s Benefit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, One-Parent Family Payment, Jobseeker’s Transitional Payment (JST), or Disability Allowance—may continue to receive these payments for the duration of their traineeship. Those who are not in receipt of social welfare benefits may be eligible for a training allowance.

The Complainant was informed of these conditions prior to the commencement of his traineeship. In his email of 2 October 2022, the Complainant confirmed that he understood these arrangements. In fact, he stated that he could “easily manage [his] finances without getting any payments from social or solas etc. I can write any letter so you will not have any funding pressure.]

Having considered the matter, I find that the Complainant was not an “employee“ as defined by the Act.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant asserted that he was unfairly dismissed and that he had 12 months service. The Complainant stated in the form that he requested that some payments be made to him as he could not work during the course. He stated that he duration of the course was excessive and constituted exploitation. The Complainant stated further that he referred the matter to the Ombudsman but was advised to refer his claim to the WRC.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant alleged that he was told that he had to attend the course or he would be struck out. He decided not to attend. The Complainant sought re-instatement on the course subject to the changes in the set-up of the course, which he was unhappy with.

In respect of his loss, the Complainant gave evidence that he has been working as a taxi driver since he left the training. The terms and condition were better than those he had during the traineeship. He said that in April 2024 he commenced a driving instructor training with the Road and Safety Authority and on 8 June 2025 he started working as a driving instructor.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent.

Without prejudice to the preliminary matter, the Respondent submits that the Complainant was registered on a training course and he was required to attend training. Any absences must be notified to the course contact. Permitted absences include medical, dental, and optical absences, sickness (certified and uncertified), bereavement and permitted time off.

The Respondent submits that after meeting with the Complainant to discuss the Complainant’s issues with the course, the Complainant emailed requesting to be suspended from the course until the dispute was concluded and that he would then like to conclude his traineeship.

The Complainant did not attend training and despite emailing him on 31 January 2024 and 6 February 2024 to remind him of the requirement to attend, he failed to respond.

The Respondent submits that it is stated in the induction, which the Complainant completed, that any learner absent for 3 consecutive days without notifying their tutor will be considered to have left the course and may be terminated. As the Respondent received ESF funding to finance the training and is audited every year on that delivery and payments made, learners who do not attend training and who do not respond to contacts are terminated and advised to return to their Social Welfare office.

As such, on 12 February 2024, the Respondent terminated the Complainant’s participation in the course as per its policy and procedures.

The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent rejects the claim and contends that there was no contract of employment in place as the Complainant was a trainee and not an employee.

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides the following definitions.

“employee” means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment and, in relation to redress for a dismissal under this Act, includes, in the case of the death of the employee concerned at any time following the dismissal, his personal representative;

“employer”, in relation to an employee, means the person by whom the employee is (or, in a case where the employment has ceased, was) employed under a contract of employment and an individual in the service of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014), shall be deemed to be employed by the local authority;

“contract of employment” means a contract of service or of apprenticeship, whether it is express or implied and (if it is express) whether it is oral or in writing;

At the adjudication hearing there was no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent but a participant in a traineeship programme delivered by the Respondent in partnership with the host company. Consequently, the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent.

I find that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent. I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. 

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive the national minimum rate of pay. He stated that he obtained a statement from his employer of his average rate of pay. He also stated that he did not request such a statement.

At the adjudication hearing the Complainant stated that initially, after the commencement of the traineeship, he was able to work part-time. However, he later asked to be paid by the Respondent and was refused. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the arrangements of the programme.

The Complainant confirmed that he did not request a statement of his average rate of pay from the Respondent. 

Without prejudice to the preliminary matter, the Respondent submits that trainees are paid a training allowance (funded by the European Social Fund) for the duration of their training, if they are in receipt of a social welfare payment. The training allowance amount they are paid is the same as the rate included on their Training Allowance Entitlement Form F103, completed, signed and stamped by the applicant’s local social welfare office.

The social welfare office had indicated that the Complainant was a job seeker and should receive the jobseeker’s allowance for 25 and over, which is what was paid to him.

The training allowance is a payment in lieu of a social welfare payment and can only reflect the social welfare payment. Trainees, who are not in receipt of a social welfare payment do not receive a training allowance.

The Complainant was aware of the payment and was willing to forego any payment as stated in an email from him dated 2 October 2022.

Trainees in receipt of a payment are entitled to this payment and no deductions are made for absences. Allowances are also increased to keep in line with the social welfare payment increases, as per the relevant Learner Payment Policy and Operating Guidelines.

The Respondent contends that as the payment is a training allowance in lieu of social welfare the National Minimum Wage Act does not apply.

Section 1 of the National Minimum Wage Act provides the following definitions.

“contract of employment” means—

(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, or

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person to do or perform personally any work or service for that person or a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract),

whether the contract is express or implied and, if express, whether or not it is in writing;

“employee” means a person of any age who has entered into, or works or has worked under, a contract of employment;

“employer”, in relation to an employee, means the person with whom the employee has entered into, or for whom the employee works or has worked under, a contract of employment, and includes a transferee of an undertaking referred to in section 46;

At the adjudication hearing there was no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent but a participant in a traineeship programme delivered by the Respondent in partnership with the host company. Consequently, the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive the minimum rate of pay as set out in an Employment Regulation Order.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he was not covered by an Employment Regulation Order.

The Respondent rejects the claim.  Without prejudice to the preliminary matter, the Respondent contends that as the payment is a training allowance in lieu of social welfare, the Industrial Relations Act is not applicable.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he was a trainee and was not covered by an Employment Regulations Order either for the contract cleaning industry, security industry and/or early leaning and childcare sector.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that he was required to work more than the permitted number of hours.

He stated that the duration of the course was excessive, and it was “the same exploitation where slave have to work for little water and bread from its master”.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant did not dispute that the hours of his training were outlined to him and that the traineeship did not require more than 41.75 hours per week.

The Complainant confirmed that he received three breaks, two of 15 minutes and a lunch break of 30 minutes.

Without prejudice to the preliminary matter, the Respondent submits that the course is a traineeship, which combines learning in the classroom and experience in the workplace. This traineeship has two distinct areas, an initial forty-week period in the classroom and workshop, followed by 79 weeks on the hangar floor.

The course starts at 8:30am and finishes at 4:45pm Monday to Thursday, with a 1:45pm finish on a Friday. When trainees move to the practical training element of the course, they start at 8:00am and finish at 4:30pm as per the shift hours in the operating aircraft maintenance hangar, with a 3:45 finish on a Friday. Applicants are made aware of this during a briefing, prior to the commencement of their traineeship. They were informed that there may be occasions where the trainees would need to work outside of these times, usually on a voluntary basis.

The Complainant was made aware of this at induction as per the induction slide exhibited at the hearing. Furthermore, there is no indication on the Complainant’s timesheets that he was clocked in for more than 40 hours per week.

The Respondent submits that, as this is a training course and the Complainant was not required to participate for more than 40 hours per week, the training course was not in violation of the Act.

The Organisation of Working Time Act provides the following definitions.

“contract of employment” means—

(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, and

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person, who is carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act, 1971, and is acting in the course of that business, to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person (whether or not the third person is a party to the contract),

whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing;

“employee” means a person of any age, who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and references, in relation to an employer, to an employee shall be construed as references to an employee employed by that employer; and for the purposes of this Act and the Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations, a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956) shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or Government, as the case may be, a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State as a member of the Defence Forces shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the State or Government, as the case may be, and an officer or servant of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001 (as amended by the Local Government Reform Act 2014), or of a harbour authority, health board or a member of staff of an education and training board shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority, board or committee, as the case may be;

“employer” means in relation to an employee, the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment, subject to the qualification that the person who under a contract of employment referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition of “contract of employment” is liable to pay the wages of the individual concerned in respect of the work or service concerned shall be deemed to be the individual’s employer;

At the adjudication hearing there was no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent but a participant in a traineeship programme delivered by the Respondent in partnership with the host company. Consequently, the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent for the purposes of the Act.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment.

The Respondent submits that as traineeship participants are in training and not in employment when participating on the course, they would have not received terms and conditions of employment.

Elsewhere in this decision, I found that the Complainant does not come within the definition of an employee under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

In his WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant alleged that he was not notified in writing of a change to his terms of employment.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant alleged that on 13 November 2023 he moved to the work experience part of the training. While initially the course took some 33 hours per week, with the move, he was required to commit to some 40-41.75 hours per week.

The Complainant said that he did not recall seeing the slide exhibited by the Respondent.

The Complainant said that he had issues with the setup of the course. He said that these problems affected his life and that he was used as free labour.

Without prejudice to the preliminary matter, the Respondent submits that the requirements of the course were outlined to the Complainant at the outset. The Respondent exhibited a copy of a slide from a briefing session where applicants were informed of the delivery hours for academic and practical element.

The slide entitled “Times” showed the following.

Class/Workshop Times – 8.30-15.45 Mon to Thurs

                                            8.30 -12.45 Fri

APT/OJE Times               [host organisation]  8.00-16.45 Mon to Thurs

                                                  8.00-15.45 Friday   

                                                  No weekend

In line with my finding in CA-00065380-004 and CA-00065380-007, I find that the Complainant was not an employee for the purposes of the Act.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

Traineeship – unfair dismissal – terms of employment – hours-