Background:

The Complainant, an Indian national represented by Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, made a series of complaints against the Respondent, a restaurant which employed the Complainant. The hearing was initially convened remotely, which was then adjourned to a later in-person hearing to allow the parties to consider written submissions which had been produced on the day of hearing. At the outset of the resumed in-person hearing, the Respondent objected to the attendance of two Gardaí who were in attendance to protect the Complainant as there had been a complaint of witness intimidation and a credible allegation of human trafficking. The Respondent wholeheartedly objected to the attendance of the Gardaí other than to provide evidence as required and made submissions that the matter should be held in private. After considering the matter, the adjudication officer decided that “special circumstances” justifying the matter being held in private had not been established, and as a result the matter would be held in public and the Gardaí would be permitted to remain in attendance. In response to this position, the Respondent withdrew from the hearing and did not participate in it.

After the Respondent’s withdrawal, the Complainant set out uncontroverted evidence that she had been recruited from a job in Malaysia to work at the Respondent’s restaurant. The Complainant provided evidence that indicated she had been required to work excessive hours, had her wages deducted unlawfully by regular forced withdrawals of cash from an ATM, did not receive the national minimum wage when such deductions were considered, was subjected to dangerous and painful working conditions, did not receive statutory breaks, did not receive annual leave, did not receive Sunday premium payments, and was subject to sexual harassment. The Complainant alleged that she was unfairly dismissed as retaliation for refusing her colleagues’ sexual advances and was not provided minimum notice for that dismissal. A member of An Garda Síochána gave evidence that the Complainant’s failure to submit her complaints within six months of their occurrence was due to an ongoing Garda investigation in relation to her situation, and this was provided to support an application for an extension of time for these complaints.

Outcome:

Due to the uncontroverted evidence of the Complaint, the Adjudication Officer found all the complaints made by the Complainant to be well-founded. Notably, the Adjudication Officer permitted an extension of time to the maximum statutory period of 12 months prior to the date of the complaint made. The method by which the Adjudication Officer assessed compensation in their decision was also notable, giving both compensation in respect of wages unpaid or unlawfully deducted, as well as compensation for the breach of such entitlements. The Adjudication Officer also assessed an award in respect of the sexual harassment alleged at the maximum two years compensation, which in this case was €60,000.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Poor, irregular or “informal” employment arrangements can give rise to enormous risk under many different statutes, and the monetary award provided in this case is low given its facts.

The full case is here:  https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/march/adj-00045992.html