WHAT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR…
Unpaid Work – Work Experience / Internships
The Workplace Relations Commission recently issued a notice on unpaid work. They have outlined:
“The National Minimum Wage Act applies to all individuals engaged under a contract of employment.
The law defines a contract of employment as any contract whereby an individual agrees with another person, to do or to perform personally, any work or service for that person or a third person.
Apart from the employment of close family relatives and the engagement of registered industrial apprentices, there is no exemption in law from the obligation to pay the national minimum hourly rate of pay. Therefore, national minimum wage rates apply to work experience placements, work trials, internships and any other employment practice involving unpaid work or working for room and board, regardless of the duration of the engagement.
The right to receive the minimum wage cannot be waived in a contract as any provision in an agreement to do so is void as a matter of law.
Failure to pay the national minimum hourly rate of pay is a criminal offence, punishable upon summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding €2,500 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both.
In addition, an employee not in receipt of the national minimum hourly rate of pay may refer a complaint to a WRC Adjudication Officer who may order payment of the wages unpaid or underpaid.”
“The National Minimum Wage Act applies to all individuals engaged under a contract of employment.
The law defines a contract of employment as any contract whereby an individual agrees with another person, to do or to perform personally, any work or service for that person or a third person.
Apart from the employment of close family relatives and the engagement of registered industrial apprentices, there is no exemption in law from the obligation to pay the national minimum hourly rate of pay. Therefore, national minimum wage rates apply to work experience placements, work trials, internships and any other employment practice involving unpaid work or working for room and board, regardless of the duration of the engagement.
The right to receive the minimum wage cannot be waived in a contract as any provision in an agreement to do so is void as a matter of law.
Failure to pay the national minimum hourly rate of pay is a criminal offence, punishable upon summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding €2,500 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both.
In addition, an employee not in receipt of the national minimum hourly rate of pay may refer a complaint to a WRC Adjudication Officer who may order payment of the wages unpaid or underpaid.”
Supreme Court decision addresses workplace disability dilemma
A disabled Employee's legal case is playing out against the backdrop of the Government looking to increase the numbers of people with disabilities in the workforce.
It is the ultimate personal nightmare. You are a qualified medical nurse, you are productively employed as a special needs assistant (SNA) in the service of children with a wide range of disabilities, both physical and mental. Then, one day, you are struck down and left in a state of paralysis.
In July 2010, Marie Daly, a Kerry- based SNA, found herself in this position following an accident while on holiday. She subsequently spent five months at the National Rehabilitation Centre and has remained wheelchair-bound.
Clearly, a woman possessed of great determination, she has used all legal means possible to secure her former job at the Nano Nagle school near Killarney. Ms Daly took legal action against the school board after a lengthy series of investigations refused her permission to return to work.
The plaintiff — and, later, appellant — brought her case for discrimination against her Employer initially to the Equality Tribunal, since absorbed into the Workplace Relations Commission, and when it was rejected, she succeeded on appeal at the Labour Court, securing an award of €40,000 in compensation.
The High Court upheld this decision. However, the school won, in turn, at the Court of Appeal. A reminder, if one is needed, that the legal road can be a windy and treacherous one for a litigant to travel.
However, the Supreme Court has backed Ms Daly while sending the matter back to the Labour Court for a final decision — Mr Justice McMenamin having concluded, in a well- thought out judgement, that the Court “should not act as a surrogate Labour Court”.
It will be up to the Labour Court to decide on the extent to which it will be possible for Ms Daly to return to employment at her former place of work.
This has been a long drawn out saga, during which serious legal minds have reached very different conclusions regarding the extent of the requirement on an organisation to accommodate an employee whose capacities have been seriously impacted by physical disability.
The judgement comes at an interesting time. The Government has said that it aims to increase the employment rate of people with disabilities from 3% to 6% by 2024.
One hopes that the resulting clarity will assist organisations to grapple with the challenges to their systems that arise when employees are left with reduced capacity as a result of accident or illness.
It is the ultimate personal nightmare. You are a qualified medical nurse, you are productively employed as a special needs assistant (SNA) in the service of children with a wide range of disabilities, both physical and mental. Then, one day, you are struck down and left in a state of paralysis.
In July 2010, Marie Daly, a Kerry- based SNA, found herself in this position following an accident while on holiday. She subsequently spent five months at the National Rehabilitation Centre and has remained wheelchair-bound.
Clearly, a woman possessed of great determination, she has used all legal means possible to secure her former job at the Nano Nagle school near Killarney. Ms Daly took legal action against the school board after a lengthy series of investigations refused her permission to return to work.
The plaintiff — and, later, appellant — brought her case for discrimination against her Employer initially to the Equality Tribunal, since absorbed into the Workplace Relations Commission, and when it was rejected, she succeeded on appeal at the Labour Court, securing an award of €40,000 in compensation.
The High Court upheld this decision. However, the school won, in turn, at the Court of Appeal. A reminder, if one is needed, that the legal road can be a windy and treacherous one for a litigant to travel.
However, the Supreme Court has backed Ms Daly while sending the matter back to the Labour Court for a final decision — Mr Justice McMenamin having concluded, in a well- thought out judgement, that the Court “should not act as a surrogate Labour Court”.
It will be up to the Labour Court to decide on the extent to which it will be possible for Ms Daly to return to employment at her former place of work.
This has been a long drawn out saga, during which serious legal minds have reached very different conclusions regarding the extent of the requirement on an organisation to accommodate an employee whose capacities have been seriously impacted by physical disability.
The judgement comes at an interesting time. The Government has said that it aims to increase the employment rate of people with disabilities from 3% to 6% by 2024.
One hopes that the resulting clarity will assist organisations to grapple with the challenges to their systems that arise when employees are left with reduced capacity as a result of accident or illness.
Event Management Firm ordered to pay €90k for Unfair Dismissal
An event management firm here that attracts Heads of State and company CEOs to its events has been ordered to pay €90,000 in compensation to a Speaker Director for his unfair dismissal.
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudication Officer, Jim Dolan made the award after finding that the director was unfairly dismissed in July of last year.
The man worked as a Speaker Director with the company between September 2014 and July 2, 2018, and was earning a salary of €90,000 - no parties are named in the decision.
During the director’s time with the business, the event management firm’s four events had up-scaled significantly, from 1,200 speakers in 2014 to over 3,000 speakers in 2018 and the overall attendance at their events grew from 50,000 to over 100,000 attendees.
Mr Dolan stated that the firm is an Irish company that holds events across the world where it gathers the founders and CEOs of technology companies, fast-growing start-ups, policymakers and Heads of State to discuss the future and possibilities in the industry.
As Speaker Director, the claimant influenced the topics of discussion, the desired speakers and the compilation of panels across a number of the firm’s events and stages.
The director was the central point of contact for the various teams working on such events and worked with other Speakers Team members to ensure a consistently high calibre of speakers were acquired for all event stages.
However, in May 2018, a recently appointed Head of Speaker Operations amalgamated two Speaker teams and it became evident to the firm, they claim, that the claimant’s role as Speaker Director was no longer required and could be easily subsumed into other existing roles.
On June 19, 2018, the firm’s Chief of Staff and Head of HR told the claimant that his role was at risk of being made redundant.
The man received his redundancy notice on July 2, 2018.
However, a letter from the man's solicitors dated July 17, 2018, to the firm alleged that their client was “shut out of the office, marginalised and isolated from his colleagues, all of which had a damaging effect on his reputation”.
The letter alleged that there was no genuine redundancy in place at the time and further alleged that the claimant’s role was being carried out by a recently appointed Head of Speaker Operations with the assistance of Mr H, the Claimant’s former line manager.
The man’s solicitor also claimed the use of the term “garden leave” for the claimant’s paid leave during the consultation process was evident that the decision to terminate his employment had already been made.
In response, the firm wrote back to state how sorry the company was to see the claimant go and that there was no alternative position within the business that was acceptable to him.
The letter said that “needless to say, the company would have preferred for (the claimant) to remain in the company as there was never any issue with his performance or with his relationship with the CEO.”
The firm rejected the allegations that the claimant was marginalised or isolated and that he was never refused access to his desk.
The company claimed that the Speaker Director's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and the firm followed fair and reasonable procedures.
In response, the legal representative for the complainant believes this is “a very simple case”.
He said that by openly offering the complainant €5,000 at the start of the hearing the firm is holding its hands up by offering this amount of money.
In his findings, Mr Dolan found that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist and ordered the firm to pay to the director compensation in the sum of €90,000.
The firm can appeal the outcome to the Labour Court.
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudication Officer, Jim Dolan made the award after finding that the director was unfairly dismissed in July of last year.
The man worked as a Speaker Director with the company between September 2014 and July 2, 2018, and was earning a salary of €90,000 - no parties are named in the decision.
During the director’s time with the business, the event management firm’s four events had up-scaled significantly, from 1,200 speakers in 2014 to over 3,000 speakers in 2018 and the overall attendance at their events grew from 50,000 to over 100,000 attendees.
Mr Dolan stated that the firm is an Irish company that holds events across the world where it gathers the founders and CEOs of technology companies, fast-growing start-ups, policymakers and Heads of State to discuss the future and possibilities in the industry.
As Speaker Director, the claimant influenced the topics of discussion, the desired speakers and the compilation of panels across a number of the firm’s events and stages.
The director was the central point of contact for the various teams working on such events and worked with other Speakers Team members to ensure a consistently high calibre of speakers were acquired for all event stages.
However, in May 2018, a recently appointed Head of Speaker Operations amalgamated two Speaker teams and it became evident to the firm, they claim, that the claimant’s role as Speaker Director was no longer required and could be easily subsumed into other existing roles.
On June 19, 2018, the firm’s Chief of Staff and Head of HR told the claimant that his role was at risk of being made redundant.
The man received his redundancy notice on July 2, 2018.
However, a letter from the man's solicitors dated July 17, 2018, to the firm alleged that their client was “shut out of the office, marginalised and isolated from his colleagues, all of which had a damaging effect on his reputation”.
The letter alleged that there was no genuine redundancy in place at the time and further alleged that the claimant’s role was being carried out by a recently appointed Head of Speaker Operations with the assistance of Mr H, the Claimant’s former line manager.
The man’s solicitor also claimed the use of the term “garden leave” for the claimant’s paid leave during the consultation process was evident that the decision to terminate his employment had already been made.
In response, the firm wrote back to state how sorry the company was to see the claimant go and that there was no alternative position within the business that was acceptable to him.
The letter said that “needless to say, the company would have preferred for (the claimant) to remain in the company as there was never any issue with his performance or with his relationship with the CEO.”
The firm rejected the allegations that the claimant was marginalised or isolated and that he was never refused access to his desk.
The company claimed that the Speaker Director's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and the firm followed fair and reasonable procedures.
In response, the legal representative for the complainant believes this is “a very simple case”.
He said that by openly offering the complainant €5,000 at the start of the hearing the firm is holding its hands up by offering this amount of money.
In his findings, Mr Dolan found that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist and ordered the firm to pay to the director compensation in the sum of €90,000.
The firm can appeal the outcome to the Labour Court.
