Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Mr. Gavan Mackay, Mackay Solicitors.

N/A

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-00075227-001

08/09/2025

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

CA-00075227-003

08/09/2025

The Complainant outlined that he worked as a carpenter for the Respondent from 8 April to 26 May 2025. He worked for approximately 45 hours per week, at an agreed hourly rate of €26. The Complainant alleges that he did not receive his full pay and that he is owed €3,340. He further alleges that he did not receive a contract of employment. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent and that he was employed by a subcontractor company. In the circumstances, the Respondent denies the allegations in full.

The Complainant provided oral submissions.

The Complainant’ Evidence:

The Complainant stated that he was provided “Steve’s” contact details by a Ghanaian friend. He said that “Steve” was the foreman and “overall boss”, who told him to meet the Respondent Director onsite. He said that the Respondent required carpenters. The Complainant outlined that all of his communications with Steve were by text / “WhatsApp” message. He said that his phone is broken and that he cannot retrieve any of the messages. The Complainant outlined that he received no contract of employment, no payslips and no documentation concerning his employment.

The Complainant stated that he met with the Respondent Director on 8 April 2025. The Respondent Director agreed an hourly rate of €26 with him. The Complainant stated that the Respondent Director told him to contact Steve with his PPS number, his safe pass and his manual handling certification. The Complainant stated that he asked the Respondent Director about his contract of employment who responded that the Complainant would receive a contract of employment after three months.

The Complainant outlined that he worked for the Complainant from 8 April 2025 until 26 May 2025 on three of the Respondent’s sites in Dublin. He stated that they worked indoors. He said that they carpeted floors and furnished rooms. He stated that the Respondent Director was in charge and that he told him what to do.

The Complainant submitted that on 16 May 2025, Steve paid him €300 in cash and told him that he would be paid the balance. He said that he arranged to meet Steve on 26 May 2025 to receive the balance, however Steve never showed up.

The Complainant submitted that he was out of work until June / July 2025 when he commenced new employment as a welder.

The Complainant submitted that he does not recognise the name of the Subcontractor Company. He outlined that he believed that he was employed by the Respondent.

Cross-Examination:

The Complainant confirmed that Steve was his first point of contact.

The Complainant confirmed that he sent his bank details and PPS details to Steve.

The Complainant stated that Steve told him to go to two of the Dublin sites and that the Respondent Director told him to go to one of the Dublin sites.

The Respondent provided written and oral submissions.

The Respondent Director’s Evidence:

The Respondent Director outlined that the Respondent company is a building company which specialises in carpentry and plumbing. The Respondent has five employees, including a secretary, plumbers and carpenters. The Respondent works with subcontractors from all trades.

The Respondent Director outlined that Steve owns a subcontractor company (the “Subcontractor Company”). He outlined that he informed Steve that he required a qualified carpenter and that the Complainant subsequently met him onsite. He said that he tested the Complainant’s skills and established that he was not a qualified carpenter and that he had little experience. He said that the Complainant was likable and enthusiastic and so he gave the Complainant some “general housekeeping” tasks to do. He said that he told the Complainant not to return, but the Complainant did return. He said that he contacted Steve, who asked if there was anything that the Complainant could do. The Respondent Director said that they kept him on for a while.

The Respondent Director said that the Complainant worked for the Subcontractor Company. He said that he did not deal with the Complainant’s pay or bank details. He denied that he agreed the hourly rate of €26 with the Complainant. He outlined that he paid the Subcontractor Company directly for the work that the Subcontractor Company did. He provided a copy of the Subcontractor Company’s invoices for the period April to July 2025, by way of evidence.

Cross-Examination:

The Respondent Director outlined that Steve directed the Complainant to meet with the Respondent Director onsite, on 8 April 2025. He said that he had not met the Complainant before. He said that Steve facilitated the introduction and remained onsite while they established whether the Complainant was a carpenter and whether he would fit in.

The Respondent Director stated that Steve has been providing contractors for the Respondent for years and that he trusts him and has a good relationship with him. He said that Steve is not an employment agency.

The Respondent Director stated that he made no enquiries regarding the Complainant’s employment. He stated that he did not discuss his pay with him.

The Respondent Director stated that he had no agreement with the Subcontractor Company about the Complainant’s pay. He said that it was up to Steve to pay the Complainant. He said that he was invoiced for the Subcontractor Company’s services and he paid accordingly. He did not query the invoice. He said that he knows what rates people are paid insofar as he knows a General Operative’s rate or a Carpenter’s rate. However, he stated that it was up to the Subcontractor Company to pay the Complainant.

The Respondent Director stated that he knew nothing about a cash payment made to the Complainant. He also stated that he did not agree with the dates provided by the Complainant regarding his attendance at the Respondent’s sites.

The Law:

Preliminary Decisions:

In Brothers of Charity (Roscommon) Ltd. v. Marian Keigher EDA1014, the Labour Court considered the determination of an issue by way of preliminary decision. The Labour Court referred to the judgments of Kenny J. in Tara Explorations and Development Co. Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1975] IR 242; and Hardiman J. in B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2 ILRM 367 (the “B.T.F. Case”). In the latter case Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue. The classic example is where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded. In other cases, however, the position may be much less clear".

In Donegal Meat Processors v. Donal Gillespie t/a Foyle Donegal UDD2114, the Labour Court noted that, seeking for the substantive issue and the jurisdictional issue to be dealt with together, was: “akin to asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction before it determines whether or not it has jurisdiction in the first instance. […] Only if the court determines that it has jurisdiction to do so can it go on to consider the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal itself”.

Findings and Conclusion:

Following the caselaw outlined above and particularly the B.T.F. Case, I find that there is a “strong case” for determining this matter by way of preliminary decision.

Having considered all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent. According to the Complainant’s own evidence, the vast majority of his interactions concerning his pay, his PPS details and his bank details were with Steve, who owned the Subcontractor Company. The Complainant also received a cash part-payment from Steve. I also note that Steve directed the Complainant to attend two of the three Dublin sites. I am satisfied that the Complainant was provided with sufficient opportunity to substantiate his allegations by way of documentation. However, the Complainant was unable to access any text / “WhatsApp” messages and he did not provide any RoS details concern his employment history.

While there was a clear conflict of evidence between the Parties, I note that the Respondent Director’s evidence was consistent and that he corroborated his evidence insofar as he provided copies of the Subcontractor Company’s invoices that he had paid between April and July 2025.

In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent concerning his two complaints. Therefore, I decide that both complaints are not well founded.

CA-00075227-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint and therefore I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075227-003 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991:

For the reasons outline above, I find that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint and therefore I decide that the complaint is not well founded.

Preliminary Matter, Incorrect Respondent.