UAE ambassador ‘physically hit’ an employee, tribunal says

The United Arab Emirates ambassador to Ireland "physically hit" one of three young women in his employment when he lost his temper because she could not get his son to eat his dinner, a tribunal report has said.

The woman was one of three who last month were awarded €80,000 each by the Employment Appeals Tribunal for enduring "horrific" working conditions at his home.

In its formal report on the case published today the Tribunal provides additional detail on the case. It states that after the ambassador Khalid Nasser Rashed Lootah physically hit one of the women "on an occasion when he lost his temper because (she) could not get his son to eat his dinner. In a fit of temper he upturned the table and all of its content and then proceeded to hit them all using a towel."

The report also says “he was said to have regular violent verbal outbursts which were directed at them and referred to the women as ‘rubbish’ and ‘scavengers’.

Mr Lootah was recalled to Abu Dhabi by the country's foreign ministry last month following the outcome of the case. He cited diplomatic immunity for his decision not to turn up to the tribunal.

A statement from the country’s ministry of foreign affairs at the time said it was aware of the case and “takes this matter seriously and accordingly has decided to recall him to Abu Dhabi while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs investigates the issue further, in line with existing procedures”.

The women - Myra Calderon, Laylanie Laporga and Jennifer Villaranda -

took their case againt Ambassador Lootah and his wife Mehra Metad Alghubaisi.

The tribunal heard they originally began working for the family in the UAE but moved to Ireland with them in April 2011.

Ms Calderon told the tribunal they shared a room with two beds and their employers retained their passports. There was no paperwork to show charges like the universal social charge were being paid.

In its formal finding the Tribunal said: "The appellants were placed with the respondents (the ambassador and his wife) by an Employment Agency in the Philippines.

“They moved to Ireland with the respondents from the United Arab Emirates in April 2011. They lived and worked in the private residence of the respondents. They commenced their duties daily at 6.30am and finished most days close to midnight.

“They were not permitted to retire for the evening until the respondents had done so. Evidence was adduced that they worked at least 15 hours per day, seven days per week and received €170 each in cash per month. Ms Calderon, when asked by the Tribunal stated that she had never received a payslip or any pay related documentation. When asked if her PRSI or USC charges were paid she stated that she did not know.

“They were only permitted to take a 15 minute break in the morning and again in the evening. They all shared one room with only two beds. Two of the appellants had to share one bed. Their duties involved caring for the respondents children together with the entire spectrum of domestic duties.

“They stated that they were regularly subjected to verbal abuse and were often referred to as “rubbish” and “scavengers”. They were also subjected to physical abuse on occasions.”

The formal report also says “The second named respondent (the ambassador’s wife) on one occasion threw wet clothes into the face of one of the appellants whilst verbally chastising her because she wanted to wear the clothes which had been washed.

“The appellants stated that they were all scared and felt trapped. They were not permitted to leave the residence and had no facilities to communicate with anyone outside of the residence. The first named respondent (the ambassador) held all of their official documents. On the night of the 12th January, 2012 they were “rescued” from the residence with the help of the Migrant Centre of Ireland”.

Awarding each of the women €80,000, the Tribunal concluded: “From the uncontested evidence adduced in this matter, the Tribunal concludes that there was a complete non-adherence to any of the appellants employment rights.

“They were severely underpaid, worked hours way in excess of the statutory limits, in an environment that was at times said to be abusive, violent and degrading and most certainly lacked dignity and respect for the employees, they received little or no breaks, no leave annual or otherwise, no bank holiday entitlements, to name but a few”.