Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alessandra  Vaz Feliciano

Zainab Ali

Representatives

Eoghan McMahon McGrath Mullan LLP

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-00079337-001

25/09/2025

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

CA-00079337-002

25/09/2025

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

CA-00079337-003

25/09/2025

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

CA-00079337-004

25/09/2025

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

CA-00079337-005

25/09/2025

The named respondent in this case, Ms. Zainab Ali and her husband (who was not named as a respondent in these Specific Complaints), are the subject of an identical set of complaints based on the same facts and alleged breaches of the law in ADJ 62628 (Complaint references CA-75748-001 to 005 inclusive).

They must be taken on the basis of the evidence given in ADJ 62628 to have jointly employed the complainant and the complainant’s solicitor agreed at the hearing that this referral was an unnecessary duplication of the complaints which also gives rise to other difficulties.

This is reflected in the Decision below.

The complainant was employed as a live in au pair/domestic operative by the respondent from  December 1st, 2024, to April 2nd, 2025. She suffered consistent mistreatment during her time working with the respondents, who, she says, disregarded their legal obligations as employers.

The complaints arise under the: National Minimum Wage Act 2000, Payment of Wages Act 1991, Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Ms. Feliciano is a Brazilian national who came to Ireland in early 2024 as an English language student. She is a qualified message therapist with experience and qualifications in that area of work.

The engagement lasted only eighteen weeks but had an adverse effect on Ms. Feliciano having been pressured to work in excess of what was agreed or work which was not agreed in advance. She began her move to the house to begin work over on November 30th,  and December 1st.

During her first week, Ms. Feliciano discovered that her work would not be limited to work with the two children of the family, but that she would be expected to help prepare dinner, set and clear the dinner table for the family, and to help the mother of one of her employers, who also lived in the property.

At no point were Ms. Feliciano’s agreed hours or duties kept to. She was often required to work on Sundays. Given the regularity of the requests, Ms. Feliciano began staying on a friend’s couch on Saturday evenings so that she would not be in the house and as such not pressured to work on Sundays, or at least that the time she would be asked or expected to work would be later in the evening.

The respondent did not attend the hearing

At the hearing it was not entirely clear why these duplicate complaints against this respondent had been made at all.

The named respondent in this case, and her husband (who was not named as a respondent in these Specific Complaints), are the subject of an identical set of complaints based on the same facts and alleged breaches of the law in ADJ 62628 (Complaint references CA-75748-001 to 005 inclusive).

They must be taken on the basis of the evidence given in ADJ 62628 to have jointly employed the complainant and the complainant’s solicitor agreed at the hearing that this was an unnecessary duplication of the complaints which also gives rise to other difficulties.

I am satisfied therefore that all the matters raised in the complaints have been substantively addressed in ADJ 62628 standing jointly in the name of this respondent and her husband, who must be taken on the basis of the evidence to have jointly employed the complainant.

I have found a number of them to be well founded as against both respondents in that case and made awards accordingly.

Accordingly, it is not necessary to make a separate finding in this case.

I am required by the language and provisions of the Workplace Relations Act to make a finding as to whether a complaint is ‘well founded’ or ‘not well founded’.

For the avoidance of any doubt in making a finding in respect of these Specific Complaints that they are not well founded I do so only for a very narrow technical reason that it must be one or the other in respect of this respondent. It therefore applies only to the Specific Complaint references against this respondent, (CA-79337-001 to 005) and not to the facts giving rise to them which as noted are addressed elsewhere.

My Decision and findings on the complaints have been made in respect of both respondents in ADJ 62628 and that stands as a determination of the breaches which are the subject of the complaints.

For the very particular reasons set out above in the Decision Specific Complaints CA-79337-001 to 005 are not well founded.