Frank Regan T/A DNG Frank Regan (Represented by Connellan Solicitors) v Enda Murphy

 
FREE EXCERPT

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

MWA/17/10

DETERMINATION NO.MWD182

r-151703-mw-14/SR r-156000-mw-15/SR

PARTIES:
Frank Regan T/A DNG Frank Regan (Represented by Connellan Solicitors)
and
Enda Murphy
SUBJECT:
1

1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer's Decisions no: r-151703-mw-14/SR & r-156000-mw-15/SR.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. This case is an appeal by the Worker of a Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer's Decisions no r-151703-mw-14/SR & r-156000-mw-15/SR. The Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer in his Decision of the 23 October 2017 found against the Worker's claim. On the 30 November 2017 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 27(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24 January 2018. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
3

This an appeal from two decisions of a Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer (r-151703-mw-14/SR and r-156000-mw-15/SR, both dated 23 October 2017) under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. The appeal was heard in conjunction with another appeal which was brought under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The parties to the appeal are referred to in this determination as they were at first instance i.e. Enda Murphy is referred to as the Complainant and Frank Regan T/A DNG Frank Regan as the Respondent. The Complainant referred all three appeals to this Court, the Rights Commissioner having found that he had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

Employment Status
4

A preliminary issue in relation to the Complainant's employment status during the period relevant to the within claim/appeal falls to be determined by the Court. The Respondent submits that at no time did he enter into a contract of service with the Complainant and, therefore, the Complainant does not have locus standi to pursue the within appeal. It follows that the burden of rebutting that submission falls on the Complainant before the Court can assume jurisdiction to consider his substantive claims.

5

It appears to be common case that the Complainant undertook an Estate Agency Practice Course in the academic year 2012–13 during which time the Respondent acted as an informal mentor to the Complainant....

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL