An appeal by the horse racing trainer, Anthony (Tony) Mullins, against an award of more than €86,000 made to one of his former employees by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has been rejected by the Labour Court.
In a decision just published, the court upheld the award against Mr Mullins, a well-known figure in the industry, in the case taken by Yasir Ali, a migrant worker who he employed as a stable hand at Watree Stud in Co Kilkenny.
Mr Ali worked for Mr Mullins between September 9th, 2019 and November 9th, 2021, when he was dismissed not long after WRC officials carried out inspections at the yard.
He told a December 2022 WRC hearing that he worked 13 out of every 14 days, with the hours involved varying somewhat between summer and winter, during the time he was employed by Mr Mullins.
Marriage equality a decade on: ‘Things have gone backwards’
Rhasidat Adeleke on life in the spotlight: ‘How do people like Beyoncé handle this? This is crazy!’
Dara Ó Briain: ‘I’m a man, I can’t manage family at the best of times ... now I’ve willingly taken on a 600% increase in family members’
Michael Gaine: Suspected body parts found in search for missing Kerry farmer
In her decision on the case, which was not previously reported, WRC adjudication officer Bríd Deering cited evidence suggesting Mr Ali was working days of between nine and 10 hours during the week and between 7½ and eight hours at weekends.
Mr Ali said he was provided with accommodation, shared with another worker, “in a space adjacent to the stables and horses”. He said he received €350 in pay each week, €100 of it in cash and the rest by cheque.
He said he was not paid any premiums for Sundays or public holidays, received no holidays or leave during the more than two years he was in the job, and had not been provided with any written terms of employment.
He said he was told by another employee of Mr Mullins to sign a document containing terms, but felt these did not accurately reflect the work he did. However, he said he signed it because he was fearful of the consequences if he did not.
Mr Ali said that having asked his employer several times about his work permit, and repeatedly being told he would be given it “soon”, he eventually approached the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment himself.
Shortly afterwards, he said, WRC officials carried out the first of two inspections at the yard, which he said prompted Mr Mullins to dismiss him without notice.
Mr Ali, who subsequently received assistance from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, recalled telling his supervisor he would have nowhere to live if ejected from his accommodation. He said he was told his possessions would be thrown out if they were still there the following day.
Mr Mullins failed to attend the WRC hearing and was not represented. He had sent an email the previous day saying he would not be able to attend.
However, the adjudicating officer decided to proceed as she felt he had received sufficient notice and did not provide an adequate reason for not turning up.
She found the claim to be well founded and awarded Mr Ali a total of €86,385.63 in back pay and compensation with respect to breaches of five different pieces of employment legislation.
The WRC decision was on March 9th, 2023, but Mr Mullins only lodged his appeal on April 27th, after the 42-day window to do so had elapsed.
At a Labour Court hearing on April 22nd last, Stephen O’Sullivan, instructed by Poe, Kiely, Hogan, Lanigan Solicitors, argued the filing of the appeal was delayed due to exceptional circumstances.
Mr Mullins told the hearing he had resolved to appeal the decision on the day he received it, but it was very busy time with the Cheltenham and Fairyhouse festivals on.
A close member of his family then became seriously ill, he too became ill, and his doctor died, he said.
Under cross-examination, he said he could not recall if he had attended the Cheltenham Festival, but the court’s decision quoted him as saying he “imagined he attended some of it”.
The court, chaired by Katie Connolly, said no exceptional circumstances had been established and that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
