Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Richard  Memery

Royalbridge Limited

Representatives

Noel Gargan Christie + Gargan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00076178-001

09/10/2025

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

CA-00076178-002

09/10/2025

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

CA-00076178-003

09/10/2025

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

CA-00076178-004

09/10/2025

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

CA-00076178-005

09/10/2025

The Respondent raises a preliminary point that the Complainant was never an employee of the Respondent. The Complainant alleges, that due to the nature and hours of the work he performed for the Respondent an employer/employee relationship developed.

The Complainant accepts that he was placed with the Respondent company as part of the WPEP scheme. However, he states that in relation to the Underpayment / National Minimum Wage claim although the WPEP placement was intended to involve 30 hours of training per week, he was effectively performing substantial paid-employee/executive functions while working 40+ hours per week and remaining available for up to 15–16 hours per day, including weekends and days off. He claims approximately €4,706 in unpaid wages.

He alleges that the working arrangements breached the Organisation of Working Time Act because of the hours worked and the extensive daily availability required.

He claims payment for six accrued but untaken days of annual leave, valued at €648.

 He alleges that the requirement to remain available for long periods and to work weekends deprived him of the statutory daily and weekly rest periods. He additionally alleges that he did not receive statutory lunch breaks, was required to work at unsafe/unsanitary locations, and had to use his own phone and data for company business. He also alleges coercive and harassing conduct by the Financial Controller.

 The Complainant further alleges that his termination, together with an accusation of assault which he says the Gardaí subsequently found resulted in “no case to answer,” amounted to retaliation, harassment and intimidation following his requests concerning his employment terms and preparation of his WPEP complaints.

Mr. Memery voluntarily applied for and accepted a placement with the Respondent company through the Department of Social Protection under the WPEP ( work placement experience programme) . At all times it was understood that his participation was governed by the terms and conditions of that programme. He was not engaged by the company as an employee and, in accordance with the WPEP arrangements, no wages or other remuneration were paid to him or are due to him by the company.

During Mr. Memery’s placement, the Respondent complied with the review and inspection requirements of the WPEP. The required Month 1 and Month 5 reviews/inspections were completed. The Month 5 review was attended by Ms. Sinéad Donegan of the WPEP.

At no stage during either of those reviews were any concerns or issues raised by Ms. Donegan or by Mr. Memery concerning the operation of the placement. The Respondent’s recollection is that both Ms. Donegan and Mr. Memery indicated at the relevant time that they were satisfied with how the placement was progressing.

It was only after Mr. Memery’s placement had been terminated that complaints began to be made by him. Among the matters subsequently raised was a suggestion that he should have been offered a contract of employment.  The Respondent’s position is that this was not a requirement of the WPEP and that participation in the programme did not, of itself, create an employment relationship between Mr. Memery and the company.

It is also the Respondent’s position that, as the WPEP is administered by the Department of Social Protection, the matters arising solely from the administration of that programme do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission under employment legislation.

Through the material submitted by Mr. Memery as part of his complaint, the Respondent became aware of what appear to be unauthorised recordings and copies of commercially sensitive company documents. The Respondent had not previously been aware that these materials had been removed, retained or disseminated. Those matters are separate from the WPEP complaint and are being addressed separately through the appropriate legal channels and, where applicable, with An Garda Síochána.

 The WPEP monthly compliance checks that were submitted to the WPEP during Mr. Memery’s placement support the Respondent’s evidence concerning the operation, monitoring and review of the placement.

Mr. Memery was never an employee of the Respondent. Therefore, the claims before the adjudication Officer today should be dismissed.

The issue to be determined as part of the Preliminary application is whether or not the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent.

I accept that the fact that a person participates in the Work Placement Experience Programme (“WPEP”) does not, of itself and as a matter of law, necessarily preclude a finding that an employment relationship existed. The description or label which the parties place upon a relationship is not determinative. I must consider the substance and reality of the particular relationship disclosed by the evidence before me. Accordingly, I have considered whether, notwithstanding the Complainant's participation in WPEP, the evidence establishes that a contract of employment existed between the Complainant and the Respondent, or that the nature of the relationship subsequently changed such that an employment relationship came into existence. Having considered all of the evidence and submissions, I am not satisfied that it did.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant was placed with the Respondent as a participant in the Department of Social Protection's Work Placement Experience Programme and that the Respondent participated in that programme as the Host organisation.

The WPEP is a work-experience and training programme administered by the Department of Social Protection. Its purpose is to provide eligible jobseekers with structured work experience, training and an opportunity to develop workplace skills with a Host organisation. A placement ordinarily involves 30 hours' participation per week, including training. The participant receives the applicable WPEP payment through the Department of Social Protection rather than wages from the Host organisation.

The evidence before me is consistent with that arrangement. The Complainant voluntarily applied for and accepted the WPEP placement. He was not placed on the Respondent's payroll. No wage or salary was agreed between the parties, and no wages were paid to him by the Respondent. There is no evidence of a contract of employment having been offered to or accepted by the Complainant.

I have also taken account of the evidence concerning the monitoring of the placement. The required Month 1 and Month 5 reviews were completed, with a WPEP representative attending the Month 5 review. The evidence before me is that no issue was raised during those reviews that the Complainant was in fact working as an employee rather than participating in the WPEP placement. The monthly compliance documentation is also consistent with the relationship continuing to be administered as a WPEP placement.

I have carefully considered the Complainant's contention that the reality of the arrangement was different. In particular, he contends that he performed substantial functions equivalent to those of a paid employee or executive, worked in excess of the 30 hours contemplated by WPEP, and was required to remain available for extensive periods, including weekends and days off. Those are matters which I have taken into account. However, I am not satisfied that they establish that a contract of employment came into existence.

The performance of meaningful and substantive work is not necessarily inconsistent with participation in a work-experience programme. Equally, an allegation that a Host required a participant to work hours or undertake activities outside the parameters of the WPEP may raise an issue as to whether the placement was being operated in accordance with the requirements of that programme. It does not follow, without more, that the legal relationship between the Host and Participant thereby became one of employer and employee. There is an important distinction between an alleged failure to comply with the conditions governing a WPEP placement and the existence of a contract of employment. The former does not, of itself, establish the latter.

Having examined the substance and reality of this particular relationship, and not merely the description attached to it by the parties, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has established that a contract of employment existed between him and the Respondent at any material time.

I therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant was a WPEP participant placed with the Respondent as host and was not an employee of the Respondent.

CA-00076178-001. The complaint fails

CA-00076178-002. The complaint fails

CA-00076178-003. The complaint fails

CA-00076178-004. The complaint fails

 CA-00076178-005. The complaint fails

WPEP. Contract of Employment. Employer/ Employee relationship. Jurisdiction.