This WRC Decision Should Raise Concerns For Companies Engaging Contractors

The Complainant was interviewed online by Mr M of the Respondent, for the position of an Assistant Psychologist in or around September 2023. While initially she believed that she was being hired as an employee, following review of the contract it was then the Complainant’s understanding that she was a self-employed contractor, not an employee and it was agreed that she would charge €30 an hour. The Complainant acknowledged that the Contract she signed was titled Contract for Services with the Respondent and she understood that she was responsible for her own invoicing and tax.

The Complainant stated that Mr M confirmed she would get 7 hours per day/ 35 hours per week, and to change her availability from 9-4 to 4-9. However, she was never given any such hours. Mr M then agreed to engage the Complainant for 2 hours per day, which also did not materialise. For the period 8 October 2023 to 3 November 2023 the Complainant was only offered 8 hours work, which consisted of 30-minute sessions and 15-minute for administration per session, which was pro-rated to a reduced rate of €22.50 per hour. The Complaint also stated that she was owed €120 for 4 hours training, for which she was never paid but invoiced. The Complainant submitted that she was also owed the shortfall of €7.50 for the hours she worked and furthermore, that she should have been paid 25% of the hours where no work was provided, yet she was available.

The Complainant confirmed that she could refuse hours and that Mr M had confirmed to her that she could work anywhere else, but only after she had queried her lack of hours. She used her own laptop and headphones and worked from home. She never received any handbook or polices and understood that she would not receive any holidays or public holidays. Despite this, the Complainant argued during the hearing that she was in fact an employee.

Read the full article here

Get the latest legal news and updates at Global Law Experts