A nanny who was taken off a company’s payroll after being “caught in the crossfire” during the “acrimonious divorce” of two directors whose children she was minding has won €1,900 for a breach of her statutory rights.
The worker, a Russian national who followed the couple to Ireland after they moved from Moscow to Dublin in 2010, told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) she continued to work as a nanny despite being taken off the payroll in June 2022.
The father of the children, who controlled the finances of “Redacted Holdings Ltd” – a pseudonym given by the tribunal – said the contract with the nanny was “irregular” and that he stopped the worker’s wages because he was concerned about “external scrutiny” of the firm’s affairs during the divorce proceedings.
The tribunal noted that the children’s mother, also a company director, “countermanded that decision”, and the nanny continued to receive her net wages – not through payroll, but from another company account.
‘I am back in work full-time and it is unbearable. Managers have become mistrustful’
‘Remarkable’ officer who was subject to court martial should be rehabilitated and promoted, says ombudsman
Gardaí search for potential information left behind by deceased Kyran Durnin murder suspect
Enoch Burke’s father Sean jailed for courtroom assault on garda
The worker’s evidence was that the change in her pay arrangements “solely arose from acrimonious divorce proceedings”, arguing that she was still doing the work, and that she was still an employee.
She explained that she started work as a nanny in 2009 in Moscow before the family relocated to Dublin in 2010. She said she was “retained” by a sister company of “Redacted Holdings” while waiting to receive an Irish work visa and then relocated to Dublin in 2011.
The father of the children said the nanny was “a Russian citizen and may not be working legally in Ireland” and that her wages “should never have been processed through the company”.
The children’s mother confirmed the nanny was still performing her duties and was being paid through a company account – adding that the worker was simply “caught in the crossfire” between the couple.
Adjudicator Brian Dalton fully anonymised his decision on the case in view of its connection to pending divorce proceedings in the High Court.
He wrote that the nanny, who had been married to an EU citizen for “many years” but was now divorced herself, had retained her right of residence and was “lawfully in Ireland”.
He wrote: “No evidence was provided to show that in fact it was irregular or unlawful for the company to provide childcare services. In fact many companies provide childcare services, while [this is] more likely to be in the form of an on-site creche, it still is a service provided to mind employees’ children.”
“It is the case that this arrangement was tailored to meet the needs of two directors; however, that does not make it unlawful,” he added.
He found the complainant was still employed by the firm – and found “Redacted Holdings”, the company pseudonym, was in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in its failure to provide her with the required written statements of employment terms.
He set compensation at €950 for each breach and directed the company to pay the nanny €1,800.
Mr Dalton also ordered “Redacted Holdings” to write to the nanny within a week and provide her with a statement giving the full name of the employer and its address or the relevant place of business as well as setting out her pay terms, working hours, payroll schedule, sick leave, pension and notice terms.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
