Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Samy  Jelassi

MyeSign International Inc

(amended on consent at the hearing)

Representatives

Self-Represented

Robert Jackson

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-00074952-001

29/08/2025

The Complainant appeared in person and gave evidence on the Oath.  Mr David Gilmour gave evidence on Affirmation.

It was the Complainant’s complaint that he was due to the sum of USD $10,000 in wages from the Respondent which was due on 31 July 2025.

Mr Robert Jackson, General Manager, EMEA PropperDocs UK Ltd, appeared for the Respondent and gave evidence on Affirmation. The Respondent denied any wages were due when the Complainant was engaged in a contract for services.

The name of the Respondent was clarified as MyeSign International Inc. and amended at the outset of the hearing. The contract relied upon by both parties support this amendment.

It was the Complainant's evidence that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 24 April 2025 under a written offer letter providing for a fixed monthly salary of USD $10,000 and reporting directly to Mr Robert Jackson. The Complainant stated that he worked throughout July 2025 but that his employment was terminated by email on 29 July 2025 without notice and that his July salary was never paid despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter.

The Complainant disputed the Respondents' jurisdictional objection, giving evidence that he was resident and working in Ireland, performed all of his duties from Ireland, focused on the UK and Irish markets, and reported to a manager based in Ireland. He submitted that the reality of the working relationship established a sufficient connection to Ireland for the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) to have jurisdiction.

The Complainant further rejected the Respondents' assertion that he was an independent contractor. He gave evidence that he worked under management direction, attended weekly one-to-one meetings with Mr Jackson, was integrated into the Respondents' operations, performed ongoing responsibilities, and received a fixed monthly salary. He stated that he received regular direction and guidance from Mr Jackson and that there were plans to recruit additional sales staff under his management. He submitted that these factors were consistent with an employment relationship rather than self-employment.

The Complainant confirmed that he used his own equipment to perform his work and accepted that no tax deductions had been made from payments received. He stated that he had not declared the income and remained awaiting payslips

The Complainant gave evidence that he carried out substantial work during July 2025, including sales strategy development, pipeline management, recruitment activity, KPI design and business development work. He disputed any allegations of poor performance, stating that no formal KPIs or performance objectives had been set and that any performance concerns could not justify the non-payment of earned wages.

The Complainant also gave evidence that he received neither notice nor payment in lieu of notice upon termination and that he did not receive payslips for May, June or July 2025. He submitted that the withholding of his July salary constituted an unlawful deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant sought payment of his outstanding July 2025 salary of USD $10,000, payment in lieu of notice, and such other redress as appropriate.

Cross Examination

The Respondent choose not to cross examine the Complainant despite being invited to do so.

Mr David Gilmour

Mr David Gilmour gave evidence that he participated in a recruitment process with the Respondent for an executive role intended to be based in Dublin. He stated that the recruitment process involved several stages, including delivering a presentation to members of the Respondent's management team, including Mr Robert Jackson.

Mr Gilmour gave evidence that, through his interactions with the Respondent, he understood that the Complainant was performing a senior sales role covering the EMEA region from Ireland, with particular responsibility for the UK and Irish markets. He further understood that Mr Jackson formed part of the management structure with which candidates and personnel engaged.

Mr Gilmour stated that the recruitment process was structured and included clear expectations regarding the role and associated responsibilities. He also gave evidence that he assisted at a company event organised by the Respondent in Dublin on 28 and 29 May 2025, where he worked alongside members of the Respondent's team.

It was Mr Gilmour's evidence that, based on his experience, there was a consistent level of engagement and operational activity by the Respondent in Ireland. He stated that his evidence was based on his direct interactions with the Respondent and its management team and was offered in support of the Complainant's position regarding the Respondent's operational presence and activities in Ireland.

Cross Examination

The Respondent choose not to cross examine the Mr Gilmour despite being invited to do so.

It was Mr Jackson’s submission that he did not see the relevance of the witness’s evidence.

It was the Respondent's evidence that the Complainant's engagement was with a US-based start-up business, MyeSign International Inc., and not with PropperDocs UK Limited, which the Respondent stated was not trading and had no assets. The Respondent maintained that the offer letter originated from the US entity and that all business operations were managed from the United States.

Mr Jackson gave evidence that no formal contract of employment existed between the parties and disputed that an employment relationship had been established. He stated that the Complainant had presented himself as a consultant and that discussions had taken place regarding the use of umbrella company arrangements for payroll and tax purposes.

The Respondent’s witness further submitted that the agreed remuneration was USD $8,333 per month rather than USD $10,000 per month.

The Respondent submitted its dissatisfaction with the Complainant's performance, stating that the business was an early-stage start-up with no customers at the time and that the Complainant had not generated suitable business opportunities.

It was submitted that the Respondent’s position was that there was no employer-employee relationship, that the engagement was with a US entity rather than an Irish or UK employer, and that the complaint should therefore not succeed.

Cross Examination

During cross-examination, the Complainant put it to Mr Jackson that he had repeatedly requested payslips for May, June and July 2025 and that discussions had taken place regarding the use of payroll software to generate payslips and process wages. Mr Jackson stated that payroll arrangements had never been established in Europe and that details of umbrella company providers had been given to the Complainant.

Mr Jackson reiterated that the business was a start-up venture, that the engagement was intended to assist with business development, and that there was no formal employment relationship.

Mr Jackson accepted that the offer letter referred to salary, commission and the possibility of stock options following a review period. He confirmed that business expenses incurred by the Complainant, including travel and accommodation costs, had been reimbursed, although no corporate credit card had been provided. He maintained, however, that these arrangements were consistent with a start-up consultancy engagement rather than a contract of employment.

The Complainant also confirmed that he met Mr Jackson in person on a number of occasions in Dublin and London and met the CEO in Dublin. In relation to a LinkedIn profile describing him as a consultant, the Complainant maintained that this was an error which was subsequently corrected.

In response, Mr Jackson reiterated that the business was a start-up venture, that the engagement was intended to assist with business development, and that there was no formal employment relationship. Mr Jackson stated that payroll arrangements had never been established in Europe and that details of umbrella company providers had been given to the Complainant. Mr Jackson also expressed dissatisfaction with the value of the services provided and maintained that the company had achieved little success in the EMEA market during the Complainant's engagement.

Mr Jackson accepted that the offer letter referred to salary, commission and the possibility of stock options following a review period. He confirmed that business expenses incurred by the Complainant, including travel and accommodation costs, had been reimbursed, although no corporate credit card had been provided. He maintained, however, that these arrangements were consistent with a start-up consultancy engagement rather than a contract of employment.

Preliminary Matter – Jurisdiction

The Respondent disputed the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) on the basis that the engagement was with a US entity. The Complainant's evidence was that he was resident and worked in Ireland throughout the duration of the engagement and performed all of his duties from Ireland. It is noted that the role offered was that of Director of Sales - EMEA, with a particular focus on the UK and Irish markets, rather than a role confined to the United States.

It is further noted that the written agreement dated 24 April 2025 contains no governing law or jurisdiction clause. The agreement was addressed to the Complainant at his Irish address.

Having regard to the place where the work was performed, Ireland and in the absence of any documentary or supporting evidence by the Respondent, I find that the WRC has jurisdiction to hear and determine this complaint.

Payment of Wages Act 1991

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 defines “a contract of employment” as

“contract of employment” means—

(a) a contract of service or of apprenticeship, and

(b) any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person 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) whose status by virtue of the contract is not that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, and the person who is liable to pay the wages of the individual in respect of the work or service shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be his employer,

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

Also in Section 1 an “employee” and “employer” and “wages” are defined as       

“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 purpose of this definition, a person holding office under, or in the service of, the State (including a member of the Garda Síochána 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 the Government, as the case may be, and an officer or servant of a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1941 , a harbour authority, a health board or a vocational education committee shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the authority, board or committee, 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;

Employment Status

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not an employee but was engaged as a consultant by a US entity and, accordingly, could not avail of the protections of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Complainant’s evidence was that he was engaged under a contract of employment and that the remuneration due to him constituted wages within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, it is first necessary to establish whether the Complainant was an employee for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (the “Act”) defines a "contract of employment" as:

"a contract of service or of apprenticeship, and any other contract whereby an individual agrees with another person to do or perform personally any work or service for a third person ... whether the contract is express or implied and if express, whether it is oral or in writing."

Having regard to the evidence presented, namely, the document dated 24 April 2025 wherein the Complainant received a written offer from the Respondent under which he was appointed to the role of Director of Sales - EMEA. The document specified the duties to be performed, identified reporting relationships, and set out an agreed compensation structure. While the Respondent submitted that the document was merely an outline offer and that no formal contract was ultimately executed, the statutory definition expressly recognises contracts which are oral, implied or otherwise not formally executed.

The Supreme Court in Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino's Pizza v Revenue Commissioners [2023] IESC 24 reaffirmed that employment status is determined by examining the reality of the relationship between the parties rather than solely by the labels they attach to it. The Court identified the requirement of personal service as a fundamental feature of an employment relationship and emphasised that the rights and obligations agreed between the parties must be examined in substance before considering whether the worker is carrying on a business on their own account.

Similarly, the Code of Practice on Determining Employment Status (2025) identifies personal service, control, integration, mutuality of obligation, and whether the individual is operating an independent business as relevant considerations in determining employment status.

Applying those principles to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the agreement contemplated the personal performance of services by the Complainant. The role was offered specifically to him; there was no evidence of any right of substitution; and the evidence established that he personally carried out the duties associated with the role. The Complainant reported directly to Mr Jackson, attended weekly one-to-one meetings and team meetings, participated in recruitment activities on behalf of the Respondent and was integrated into the Respondent's business development operations.

While the Respondent relied on references to consultancy contained on the Complainant's LinkedIn profile, I am satisfied that such terminology is not determinative. Applying the Supreme Court’s judgment in Karshan, it is the substance of the relationship rather than the label applied to it that must be assessed. The evidence presented by the Complainant demonstrated a structured working arrangement involving personal service, managerial oversight, ongoing responsibilities and integration into the Respondent's operations.

While the lack of payroll arrangements and the non-payment of tax may be consistent with the Respondent's contention that the relationship was one of consultancy, it is found that those factors are outweighed by the substance of the arrangement as reflected in the written offer of 24 April 2025 and the reality of the relationship between the parties.

This conclusion is further supported by the fact the Respondent choose not to challenge, in cross examination, the Complainant’s direct evidence.

In conclusion, it is found that the engagement constituted a "contract of employment" within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act.

Consequently, it is found that the Complainant was an "employee" and that the Respondent was an "employer" for the purposes of the Act.

Payment of Wages Act 1991

Section 1 of the Act defines wages as:

“wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind.”

The written offer dated 24 April 2025 provided for monthly compensation of USD $8,333 for the first 90 days and USD $10,000 per month thereafter, together with specific contractual commission entitlements. Although the Respondent characterised these payments as "compensation", I am satisfied that the substance of the arrangement was that the Complainant would receive a fixed monthly payment in return for the personal performance of his duties as Director of Sales for EMEA.

The monthly renumeration provided for in the agreement was payable in connection with the Complainant's employment and therefore falls within the definition of "wages" contained in Section 1 of the Act.

Consequently, it is found that any remuneration due for July 2025 constituted wages for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Where there was no dispute that the amount was not paid, I find the complaint is well founded.

Where the complaint has been deemed well founded, compensation is the appropriate form of redress pursuant to Section 6 of the Act.

Pursuant to Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the net sum of USD $10,000, being a sum equivalent to the unlawfully withheld and which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.