ADJ-00049238 - Workplace Relations Commission Lauren McBride V FSR Atlantic Limited t/a Adhd Now

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 April 2024
• Year: 2024
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049238

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Lauren McBride	FSR Atlantic Limited t/a Adhd Now

Representatives Self-represented

Complaints:

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-00060365-001	04/12/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00060365-002	04/12/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00060365-003	04/12/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00060365-004	04/12/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00060365-005	04/12/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00060365-006	04/12/2023
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00060365-007	04/12/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/02/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

Procedure:

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints.

A remote hearing took place on 21 February 2024. The Complainant was not represented and gave evidence under affirmation. Mr Matthew Gavin, CEO, gave evidence under affirmation on behalf of the Respondent. Both parties were afforded an opportunity to cross-examine on the evidence given at the hearing.

The Complainant was requested to submit certain emails after the hearing by a specified date. These documents were duly provided. The Respondent was afforded an opportunity to comment on these documents by a specified date. No comments were received by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in this regard.

In making my findings I have considered the written submissions of both parties and the oral evidence of the parties given at the hearing. The parties were advised that they would be named in the decision.

Background:

The Complainant alleges several breaches of her statutory employment rights. The Respondent submits the Complainant was at all times employed as an independent contractor.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Evidence of the Complainant (under affirmation) At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant submitted that she understood she was a self-employed contractor and not an employee and that she could work for anyone else. The Complainant acknowledged that the contract she signed was the document submitted by the Respondent prior to the hearing. This contract was titled: ‘Contract For Services with ADHD NOW (FSR Atlantic LTD)’. The Complainant outlined that she responded to an advertisement on a job vacancy website for the position of Assistant Psychologist. The Complainant did not retain a copy of the job advertisement. She had an online meeting with a ‘Mr M’ in September or October 2023 for approximately 15 minutes. He asked how much she wanted per hour. The Complainant agreed with Mr M that she would charge €30 per hour. Mr M told her that he would send her a contract. The Complainant outlined that she thought when she was interviewed for the position of Assistant Psychologist, that she was being hired as an employee, however, after discussing the contract with her father, she understood that she was being hired as a contractor and not an employee. The Complainant understood that she was responsible for invoicing the Respondent and paying any tax due. The Complainant outlined that she was working for other organisations prior to signing the Contract For Services with the Respondent. Mr M verbally advised the Complainant that she could work full-time or part-time hours. The Complainant told Mr M that her preference was to work full-time hours. Mr M later confirmed to the Complainant that she would get work for 7 hours per day/35 hours per week. However, this did not materialise. Mr M requested that the Complainant change the hours she was available to later in the day. Instead of working between the hours of 9am to 4pm, she would make herself available between the hours of 4pm to 9pm daily....