The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) to a Romanian woman who had worked unpaid for a month at the Mendicity Institution in Dublin.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 14 October 2022, upheld the High Court’s refusal of judicial review relief. The court found that JSA is social assistance, rather than a payment intended to help people enter the labour market, and that the woman’s workshop activity did not give her worker status under EU law.
The woman and her husband, both Romanian nationals, had lived in Ireland since 2016 with their two children. Her husband had significant health problems and was a double amputee. She undertook unpaid workshop activities at the Mendicity Institution for about a month in April 2018, attending four days a week and making decorative crafts. She received lunch but no wages. She hoped the placement might lead to a paid Community Employment scheme place.
The woman argued that her work was genuine and economically valuable, and that the hope of a future scheme place and the meals amounted to remuneration. The State disputed that account of the scheme arrangements and said she was attending voluntarily, was not on a Community Employment scheme and had no employment relationship with the Institution.
The court concluded that essential features of an employment relationship were absent. It said she had no relevant rights or duties, the attendance was voluntary, and lunch and the prospect of future scheme participation did not amount to remuneration under EU law. The court did not need to resolve conflicting evidence about the relationship between the Institution and adult education organisation Casadh.
The court also rejected the argument that JSA should be classified as a labour-market benefit because recipients must be unemployed, available for work and actively seeking employment. It found the payment’s predominant function was to provide basic subsistence to people unable to meet their living costs. The court said that the allowance’s name described the people eligible for it, rather than its purpose.
It declined to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding that EU law provided clear tests for classifying the benefit and assessing worker status. It also rejected the constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights challenges.
The appeal concerned the JSA refusal. A separate disability allowance claim brought by the woman’s husband was not pursued on appeal. The court’s provisional view was that the respondents should receive appeal costs; the appellants had 14 days to seek a hearing on that issue. No final costs order was stated in the judgment.