A childminder hailing from Russia, who had been removed from the wage roll of an enterprise amidst the furor of her employers’ contentious split, has successfully secured £1,900 in payment for infringement of her legal entitlements. This nanny, who first came to Ireland accompanying her employers after their relocation from Moscow to Dublin in 2010, stated to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that she kept on with her role as the family nanny despite being struck off the wage list in June 2022.
It was the father of the children, the man in charge of finances for “Redacted Holdings Ltd.” – a pseudonym created by the panel, who claimed that the agreement with the nanny was inconsistent. He ceased her salaries due to his apprehension over outsider examination of the company transactions during their currently ongoing divorce. On the other hand, the tribunal documented that the children’s mother, who is also part of the company’s administration, “vetoed the decision”, and the nanny continued to receive her earnings, not via the wage roll but from a subsidiary corporate account.
The nanny attested that the changes in her wage management “exclusively occurred as a consequence of the contentious divorce” and highlighted that she was still actively involved in her work and considered an employee. She began her nanny role in Moscow in 2009 and following the family’s move to Dublin in 2010, was “kept on” by an affiliate of “Redacted Holdings”. She waited for her Irish work permit before finally relocating to Dublin in 2011.
The father claimed that the nanny was “a Russian national and may have not been legally employed in Ireland”, suggesting that her wages “shouldn’t have been processed via the company”. Meanwhile, the children’s mother corroborated that the nanny was still fulfilling her responsibilities and receiving payment through a corporate account. She commented that the nanny was merely “caught in the middle” of their personal conflict.
In a case linked to a pending divorce in the High Court, adjudicator Brian Dalton made a fully anonymised decision. The nanny involved in the case, previously married to an EU citizen for a considerable duration but now divorced, had lawfully maintained her residence rights in Ireland. Dalton noted a lack of evidence indicating any irregularity or illegality for the firm to offer childcare services. He pointed out that numerous companies provide such services, often in the form of on-site nurseries, tailored to cater to the requirements of their employees’ children.
Even though the setup was specifically designed to satisfy the needs of two directors, it doesn’t render it illegal, he further elaborated. Dalton discovered that the plaintiff was still working for the company. He ruled that the company, known by its pseudonym “Redacted Holdings”, violated the Employment (Information) Terms Act of 1994 by failing to offer the necessary written employment terms.
Dalton decided upon a €950 compensation for each violation and ordered “Redacted Holdings” to pay the nanny €1,800. Furthermore, he demanded that “Redacted Holdings” provide the nanny with a written statement within a week. This statement would detail the company’s full name, business address or relevant place of business, her remuneration terms, work hours, payroll schedule, terms of sick leave, pension, and notice.