The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Tahir Nazir and Syede Nazir against Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decisions awarding Sultana Anwar sums under the Payment of Wages Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts.
Mr Justice Donald Binchy delivered the decision on 24 April 2018. The appeal concerned those two statutory claims only. A separate appeal concerning an EAT decision under the Unfair Dismissal Acts was before the Circuit Court.
Anwar, a cousin of Tahir Nazir, claimed she worked as a domestic worker for the appellants from 18 March 2009 to 10 August 2011, doing housework and caring for their three children. She said she worked seven days a week, from 7am until 11pm or midnight, and was promised €100 a week but paid €150 a month. The appellants denied that she had worked for them and said she came to visit.
The EAT preferred Anwar’s evidence, found that she had been employed and effectively constructively dismissed, and awarded her €674.70 for ten days’ pay and €1,349.40 under the employment information legislation. It separately awarded €64,771.20 under the Unfair Dismissal Acts; that award was not the subject of this High Court appeal.
The appellants argued that the EAT had wrongly found an employment relationship and that Anwar could not claim statutory protections because she had no work permit and any employment contract was illegal. The High Court held that the EAT’s findings about the work and employment relationship were based on evidence it heard. Those factual findings could not be reviewed on this appeal on a point of law, and the court found the EAT was entitled in law to conclude that an employment relationship existed.
The EAT’s decision did not address Anwar’s work permit status. The court said the issue of illegality appeared not to have been argued before the EAT, and there was no evidence that the tribunal had been told she lacked a permit or knew of the Rights Commissioner’s earlier decision dismissing her claims on that basis. Although the parties agreed for the High Court appeal that she did not have a work permit, the court made no finding that the EAT had erred by failing to address the issue.
The judge therefore dismissed both grounds of appeal. He did not decide the broader arguments about whether an unlawful employment contract could be enforced, or whether a worker without a permit could obtain employment-law remedies in these circumstances.