Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Andrii  Stryzhakov

Self-Employer

Representatives

  Self Represented

 Immigrant Advice Bureau

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00068602-001

14/01/2025

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

CA-00068621-001

15/01/2025

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

CA-00068621-002

15/01/2025

The Complainant submitted 3 complaints and did not identify a named Respondent in the complaint form. He did identify the first name of a person in the complaint form whom he dealt with and identified the address of the unnamed Respondent as a public house. In correspondence to the WRC the owner of the Public House denied any knowledge of the Complainant and advised the Complainant did not do nay work for him.  2 of the complaints related to payment of wages and 1 related to the non-provision of terms of employment.

The Complainant, who is a Ukrainian national,  stated he did internal construction work in Limerick. He stated he was not paid around 3000 Euros. He stated he understood he would be an employee and wanted a legitimate tax arrangement and employment status. He stated he did the Limerick job favourably and was surprised he did not get to do a second job in county Limerick.  The Complainant accepted there was no intention of an employment relationship at the start but that he was promised it would develop into that.  

No named Respondent was named on the complaint form.

Through various WRC communications a Ms. X (I do not deem it appropriate to identify this person in this decision) was communicated with and attended the Hearing and denied she was a Respondent in this case and denied having any employment relationship with the Complainant. Only Ms. X’s first name was supplied in the complaint form. The Representative of Ms. X stated she would not be accepting proceedings against Ms. X in this case.

The Hearing was assisted by a Russian translator.

The Complainant submitted a complaint form on January 15th 2025 but only named the Respondent as “Self Employer”. He also included the first name of Ms. X as the person he dealt with. He identified the address of the Respondent as a Public House. The WRC engaged with the address supplied by the Complainant and was advised by the Owner of the Public House that they had nothing to do with any work carried out by the Complainant and it was not done at his premises.

It is clear from photographs supplied the Complainant did some internal construction work at a location between approximately November 20th and December 3rd 2024. Equally it is clear from a written submission  this work was paid for by Ms. X . The relationship between the Complainant and Ms. X was not established to be an employment relationship.

Ms. X was identified through the various communications and the WRC wrote to her and she agreed to attend the scheduled Hearing. The day prior to the Hearing a Representative from the Immigration Advice Bureau cane on board to represent Ms. X and the Representative advised the Hearing that Ms. X was not accepting she was the Respondent for the complaint and that no employment relationship existed between Ms. X and the Complainant. Given there was no Respondent either identified by the Complainant in his complaint form or who accepted proceedings and were present at the Hearing I deem the complaint to be presented in a format that did not properly identify the Respondent and as a result I have to deem the three complaints to be not well founded.

I find complaint number CA-00068602-001 to be not well founded.

I find complaint number CA-00068621-002 to be not well founded.

I find complaint number CA-00068621-003 to be not well founded.

Payment of Wages