ADJ-00040758 - Workplace Relations Commission Loukas Anastasiadis V European Supporters Alliance Sd Europe

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2024
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040758

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Loukas Anastasiadis	European Supporters Alliance Sd Europe

Representatives John O' Keeffe & Co, Solicitors.

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00052877-001	19/09/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complainant was employed on the basis of a number of contracts which purported to be contracts for services. His employment concluded on July 31st, 2022, and he complains under the Payment of Wages Act that he is owed wages and expenses. The respondent raises a number of preliminary points. The first is that due to the nature of his contract he is not an employee and therefore not covered by the Act. In any event, it says that even if he were an employee, he is not entitled under the act to seek reimbursement of expenses as this is excluded under the Act.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant gave his evidence on affirmation. He says that his relationship with the respondent went back fifteen years and in 2016 following a reorganisation he was given his first contract. In the FSE/SDE (i.e., European Supporters Alliance) Business Transfer Agreement document, in Annex 6, page 27, under "SDEuropeliabilities", his staff fee (see line "staffmemberJulyfee 3,600") and staff expenses (see lines "staff member July expenses 103" and "staff member May expenses 1,645") are clearly mentioned. There is email correspondence with the Director at the European Supporters Alliance, in which he refers to the complainant as 'staff' and he moves on specifying the process through which staff claim expenses paid on behalf of the organisation. The latter has been a standard practice of the organisation towards him and other staff since it was set up in 2016. There were three contracts with European Supporters Alliance prior to the one already submitted. A contract signed on 01.10.2016, a revised contract signed on 01.07.2019 and another revised contract signed on 31.12.2019; the latter was revised by the contract signed on 31.12.202. All contracts are almost identical and show the long-term exclusive relationship and commitment between European Supporters Alliance and the complainant. He reported to the CEO and worked remotely as the respondent did not have a fixed premises as its base. He was expected to be available during normal working hours although these had never been specifically set out in writing. He was paid a fixed monthly fee of €3600 which never varied although he did submit invoices for this each month. He also was the beneficiary of 20 to 25 days paid leave every year and there was no deduction from his monthly payment for any time off taken. In the course of cross examination, he was asked whether the CEO directed his work and whether he got detailed instructions from the CEO; he said he did. His role was to communicate with fan groups, identify their strengths and weaknesses and come up with ideas and projects for capacity building. Projects were assigned by the CEO and could take 12 to 36 months to bring to fruition during which time he had to report to the CEO. In response to a question, he confirmed that he was given a gross amount and that he paid tax in his native Greece. And asked whether this resembled how a business would pay its tax he said it was not the same. He repeated in response to a requestion that he had to get permission to take annual leave and that while he accepted that his contract provided that he could nominate a substitute this could only be done with the approval of the organisation. He also accepted that there was no restriction on him undertaking work outside the organisation, but said he had not done so, specifically in relation to a named entity in the sailing sector. He agreed that his hours of work were not written anywhere, and he confirmed that his regular conversations with the CEO's were mostly online meetings and apart from updating projects he provided general updates on his work. He said that he was required to do this daily or weekly. In summary, he submitted the following regarding the nature of his contract of employment. He says that he was under the control of the CEO who directed him as to how, when and where the work was to be carried out and he was obliged to perform work on a regular basis that European Supporters Alliance was obliged to offer him. He received a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage and regularly received expense payments to cover subsistence and travel expenses and had to request and get approval in order to go on a leave and could not control the hours of work, nor could he refuse taking on specific work. He did not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business nor could he hire other people on his terms to do the work (see clause 3.6, page 5, of contracts provided. He could not provide the same services to more people or services.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent is a...