Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1794. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if he will order a judicial review into a matter (details supplied). [41817/25]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1795. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if he will order a judicial review into a matter (details supplied). [41818/25]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1796. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection whether he intends to initiate proceedings against those involved, in light of the evidence of criminal offences under section 252 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act (2005) in evidence to a case (details supplied), which were presented prima facie to the Chief Appeals Officer on 22 February 2023 and subsequently proven to be evidence of such offences under oath at the Workplace Relations Commission on 30 January 2024. [41819/25]

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1794 to 1796, inclusive, together.

The question at issue in the appeal referenced is whether the worker has been working for the appellant company under a contract of service or under a contract for services during the period concerned. The worker sought a determination on his employment status on 8 May 2020.

The Scope section of my Department decided on 18 November 2020 that the worker has been working under a contract of service for the appellant company and has been insurably employed at the PRSI Class A rate.

This decision was appealed by the appellant company. The appeal was allowed.

The worker emailed the Social Welfare Appeals Office on 23rd February 2023 alleging errors in fact and law.

Section 318 provides that the Chief Appeals Officer may, at any time, revise any decision of an Appeals Officer, where it appears to the Chief Appeals Officer that the decision was erroneous by reason of some mistake having been made in relation to the law or the facts. I understand from the Chief Appeals Officer that she used these powers to carry out a review of the Appeals Officer's decision dated 20th January 2023. In doing this she has considered the evidence provided by all parties to the Appeals Officer both in writing and at the oral hearing. She also considered the information in subsequent documents provided by the worker. Her review was structured in light of the approach to employment status set out in authoritative judgment in Revenue Commissioners v Karshan (Midlands) Ltd t/a Domino’s Pizza [2023] IESC 2024 (‘Karshan’).

In her conclusion the Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the analysis of the Appeals Officer that, when the general principles are applied to the particular facts in the case, an employment relationship is not found to exist between the worker and the appellant company.

I am satisfied that the Chief Appeals Officer has carried out her review correctly and I do not intend to order a judicial review of the decision.