This case involved a South African nanny based in a house in Dublin to look after a widower's children. There is some confusion over the documentation, much of which referred to South African legislation and the employer had business interests in South African, from where he recruited the employee. However, he failed to attend the hearing or engage in the process, although the tribunal noted that he had been contacted:

"The respondent did not engage with the investigation. No submission was received from the respondent nor did the respondent attend the hearing. The respondent was notified of the date of the hearing by two separate registered letters. The Tribunal was informed by An Post that the first one was successfully delivered; the second letter was returned to the Tribunal. I note that the respondent is listed on the register of electors 2011-2012 at the address to which the letters issued."

The complainant contended:

* she was paid less than the minimum wage, 
* she worked well in excess of 48 hours per week, 
* she was not paid Bank Holiday entitlement, 
* she was not paid Sunday premium, 
* she was not given appropriate breaks, 
* she did not have privacy during her time off having to inform the respondent of her whereabouts at any time of the day, 
* her movements were controlled by the respondent outside of work hours, 
* she was made to work as a live-in housekeeper rather than a child minder, 
* she was subject her to verbal abuse and being threatened with dismissal.

The EO found "the complainant was a cogent and credible witness." It is difficult to establish a comparator where there is only one employee. The EO concluded:

"The provisions in the contract of employment entered into between the complainant and the respondent in South Africa are quite clearly not in compliance with Irish employment law. The contract runs to eleven pages. It does not include details of hours of work, provides for 15 days annual leave after one year's work is completed, and outlines, over two pages, security searches, testing ( urine/blood tests, polygraph, forensic/electronic/chemical), monitoring (of premises, equipment, vehicles), surveillance of telephones, email, internet access, which the employer may undertake at any time. I am satisfied that an Irish employee would not have been given such a contract. I am satisfied that an Irish employee would not have been placed in the vulnerable position in which the complainant was placed, in a foreign country without appropriate documentation, without any support network, and dependant on the respondent for both employment and accommodation. I am satisfied that this left the complainant more vulnerable to being treated less favourably in terms of conditions of employment. I have found the complainant's evidence to be credible and I am satisfied that the complainant has adduced evidence from which a prima facie case of discrimination on the race ground in relation to her conditions of employment can be inferred."

She awarded €15,000 for the effects of discriminatory treatment in relation to her conditions of employment, €31,486 for the effects of discriminatory dismissal, which is equivalent to one year's salary calculated on the basis of a Right Commissioner decision and Labour Court determination that the claimant was entitled under the Minimum Wage Act 2000 to the minimum wage of €8.65 per hour equating in her case to €605.50 per week.
http://bit.ly/q0lxie