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

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date05 February 2018
Judgment citation (vLex)[2018] 2 JIEC 0502
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION,DETERMINATION NO.PWD185,r-151707-pw-14/SR

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/17/68

DETERMINATION NO.PWD185

r-151707-pw-14/SR

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

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

SUBJECT:
1

1. An appeal of an Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer's Decision no: r-151707-pw-14/SR.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. This is an appeal of an Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer's Decision no r-151707-pw-14/SR made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 24 January 2018 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
3

This an appeal from a decision of a Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer (r-151707-pw-14/SR, dated 23 October 2017) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The appeal was heard in conjunction with two other appeals which were brought under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. 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. The Complainant submits that he and the Respondent met sometime in September 2013 at which point the Complainant was about to commence a Level 8 degree course in the Institute of Technology in Limerick. This was to complement the Complainant's existing Level 6 qualification (Higher Certificate in Science in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT