Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In late 2020, the Department commenced an investigation into the PRSI classification of workers engaged by RTE as contractors. RTE provided the Department with lists of workers engaged on a contract basis in from 2018 to 2020 and these formed the basis of the investigation. These amount to 695 workers over the period. The scale of the Department’s investigation in RTE is significant and further workers may be brought into the scope of the investigation as it proceeds.

The Department does not normally comment on the status of ongoing investigations. However, I am aware that RTE has updated the Public Accounts Committee in relation to this matter. On that basis, I am happy to provide the Deputy with the following information.

To date:

• Decisions have issued in respect of 126 workers.
• 84 workers were found to have employee status and Class A PRSI applies, while 42 workers were found to be self-employed and insurable at Class S PRSI.
• 48 decisions have been appealed to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. It is, of course, entirely a matter for the worker and RTE to decide if they wish to pursue an appeal.
• Of these appeals, 19 have been disposed of (14 of which were withdrawn); with the original decisions being maintained in 18 cases. Each appeal requires a review of the appellant’s submissions and the preparation of detailed replying submissions.
• RTE has also requested a review by the Chief Appeals Officer of the Appeals Officer’s decision in two cases.
• One of the appeal decisions has also been appealed by RTE directly to the High Court without requesting a review by the Chief Appeals Officer. That case is ongoing.

As is evident from the data just outlined employment status investigations can be complex; each case involves at least two parties and each case must be investigated having regard to its own facts and with an opportunity for each party to be interviewed and to make and respond to submissions.

In some cases there is a difference of opinion between the worker and the employer as to social insurance status, in other cases both the worker and the employer contend that the engagement was that of self-employment. In either situation the Department must form its own opinion based on the information presented to it, the application of the criteria set out in the Code of Practice for the determination of employment status and the prevailing case law. It is noteworthy that in some cases the parties involved have engaged legal representatives to make and respond to submissions on their behalf.

In conducting these investigations the Department's fundamental objective is first, to ensure that workers do not suffer a loss of entitlement to social insurance benefits as a consequence of misclassification and, second, to ensure that employers collect and remit the correct amount and value of social insurance contributions. Where an investigation identifies that this has not been the case the workers record is corrected and employers are required to remit the correct value of contributions back-dated as appropriate.

I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.