{"id":222565,"date":"2025-06-28T23:48:13","date_gmt":"2025-06-28T23:48:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/222565\/"},"modified":"2025-06-28T23:48:13","modified_gmt":"2025-06-28T23:48:13","slug":"rte-hr-manager-denies-newsroom-worker-had-to-misrepresent-himself-to-revenue-to-get-shifts-with-broadcaster-the-irish-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/222565\/","title":{"rendered":"RT\u00c9 HR manager denies newsroom worker had to \u2018misrepresent himself to Revenue\u2019 to get shifts with broadcaster \u2013 The Irish Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

A senior human resources manager at RT\u00c9 <\/a>has denied at the Workplace Relations Commission<\/a> (WRC) that it got a media worker to \u201cmisrepresent his employment status\u201d to the taxman to get shifts in its newsroom. <\/p>\n

The worker, Joseph Kelly, claims he was denied the statutory entitlements to paid leave and Sunday premium pay that would normally accrue to an employee while he was engaged by the broadcaster under a \u201cfreelance\u201d contract between 2012 and 2018. <\/p>\n

The State broadcaster, however, argues that Mr Kelly was paid all Sunday premiums owed, along with annual leave and public holidays.<\/p>\n

RT\u00c9 was found liable for a \u20ac36,000 bill for the period by the Department of Social Protection after it ruled in 2022 that Mr Kelly had been employed since 2012. <\/p>\n

However, it maintains the ruling only pertains to insurability of employment and that the claims are out of time. <\/p>\n

Questioned repeatedly about Mr Kelly\u2019s status at a hearing on Thursday, a senior human resources manager at RT\u00c9 said: \u201cWe absolutely accept the insurability decision. The reality was that the contract Joseph signed was a sole trader agreement. I can\u2019t rewrite history, that\u2019s what it was.\u201d <\/p>\n

The WRC was hearing evidence in complaints brought under the Organisation of Working Time Act 2005 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 by Mr Kelly. <\/p>\n

Mr Kelly\u2019s representative, Martin McMahon, said the Department\u2019s Scope ruling showed his client \u201cshould have been treated as an employee\u201d by RT\u00c9 since 2012, and it therefore followed that he had been denied various pay-related statutory rights set out in his complaints. <\/p>\n

\"\"IATA Director General Willie Walsh on airline profits, air fares and why the Dublin Airport passenger cap makes Ireland a laughing stock<\/p>\n

Mr Kelly claims he was denied the entitlement to paid annual leave, not paid for public holidays, and did not receive a premium for Sunday work from 2012 to 2018. He further alleges he was not provided with a statement of his core terms of employment. <\/p>\n

Giving evidence on Thursday, Mr Kelly said: \u201cThe way I was brought in was by word of mouth. My name was given to a guy, I was brought in, talked to a manager, it was a casual interview. When I was coming in, HR said I had to be a sole trader, so I became a sole trader,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n

Mr Kelly said his job at that time in the broadcaster\u2019s media ingest department from 2012 to 2018 was to \u201ccover the guys in the room\u201d \u2013 all of whom were RT\u00c9 employees \u2013 and to do \u201cwhatever was needed of me\u201d. <\/p>\n

It was a \u201chigh-pressure role\u201d where Mr Kelly and his co-workers received and organised multimedia material and recorded news feeds from across the world in preparation for news broadcasts, the complainant said. <\/p>\n

\u201cI wouldn\u2019t have received time off. It\u2019s famine or feast \u2013 you might have a month where you might get two days; you might have a month where you only get two days off,\u201d Mr Kelly told the hearing. <\/p>\n

This situation continued from 2012 to 2018, when the ingest room manager \u201cgot a promotion\u201d and an employee \u201cmoved up\u201d into the management position, leaving an open vacancy, whereupon he \u201cbecame staff\u201d, Mr Kelly said. <\/p>\n

He told the WRC that due to the fact he was self employed, he \u201cwasn\u2019t allowed\u201d to apply for internal jobs. Having received a staff contract, he later secured a more senior position as a newsroom co-ordinator in 2023, he said. <\/p>\n

He also said he believed he should have got incremental pay rises and could have advanced to a more senior role more quickly if he had access to internal staff competitions and that he \u201cshould be on a higher rate than I\u2019m on now\u201d. <\/p>\n

Addressing Mr Kelly\u2019s current contract in cross-examination, RT\u00c9\u2019s solicitor, Seamus Given of Arthur Cox, put it to the complainant that he was on point 12 of a 14-point salary scale in his current role, after 11 years\u2019 service. <\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m putting it to you are correctly positioned,\u201d Mr Given said. <\/p>\n

\u201cWell, I would say no,\u201d Mr Kelly said. <\/p>\n

Angela McEvoy, a senior HR manager at RT\u00c9, gave evidence that in that period Kelly was paid all Sunday premium owed, along with annual leave and public holidays, referring to a payroll report submitted by the broadcaster. <\/p>\n

Questioning Ms McEvoy, Mr McMahon said: \u201cJoseph was an employee of RT\u00c9 from 2012 to 2018, that\u2019s the legal position, uncontested by RT\u00c9. Joseph\u2019s increments would be different if RT\u00c9 accepted all those years of service, yes or no?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo, we\u2019re saying not, because Mr Kelly is on point 12 of the salary scale, that is obviously close to the top of the salary scale,\u201d Ms McEvoy said. <\/p>\n

Asked whether RT\u00c9 informed Mr Kelly that he had been \u201cmisclassified as self-employed\u201d when he was first put on an employment contract in 2018, Ms McEvoy said: \u201cNo, because there was no need to do that. There was no need to inform Mr Kelly of anything like that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cJoseph was offered employment in RT\u00c9, but legally Joseph had been an employee from 2012, do you accept that?\u201d Mr McMahon said. <\/p>\n

\u201cNo I don\u2019t,\u201d Ms McMahon said. <\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019ve accepted it in Social Welfare, why won\u2019t you accept it here?\u201d Mr McMahon asked. <\/p>\n

\u201cWhat RT\u00c9 accepted is a PRSI insurability decision going back to 2012,\u201d the witness said. <\/p>\n

Mr McMahon continued to press Ms McEvoy on this point for some time and received the same answer. <\/p>\n

She said at one stage: \u201cYou\u2019re saying there\u2019s a contract of employment. We absolutely accept an insurability decision. The reality was that the contract Joseph signed was a sole trader agreement. I can\u2019t rewrite history, that\u2019s what it was,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n

Addressing the contract for services signed by Mr Kelly in 2012, Mr McMahon put it to her that RT\u00c9 \u201chas the power in that situation\u201d and that there was \u201cno negotiation\u201d of its terms. <\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t accept what you\u2019re saying. There is a choice for an individual to sign or not. Nobody is forced to sign,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n

She agreed that it was a term of the contract that a worker \u201chad to be registered as self-employed in order to access a self-employment agreement\u201d with RT\u00c9 at that time. <\/p>\n

Mr McMahon said it was an offence to \u201cprocure an employee to misrepresent themselves to the Revenue Commissioners\u201d. <\/p>\n

\u201cIn the contract, black and white, [it states] RT\u00c9 has to receive written confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners that Joseph can be treated as self-employed for tax purposes,\u201d Mr McMahon said. <\/p>\n

\u201cDo you accept RT\u00c9 did procure Joseph to misrepresent himself to Revenue?\u201d Mr McMahon said. <\/p>\n

\u201cAbsolutely not,\u201d Ms McEvoy said. <\/p>\n

Adjudication officer John Harraghy has concluded his hearings into the matter and will issue his decision in writing to the parties in due course. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A senior human resources manager at RT\u00c9 has denied at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that it got…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":222566,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3092],"tags":[51,897,31952,16,15,596,35136],"class_list":{"0":"post-222565","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-jobs","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-jobs","10":"tag-rte","11":"tag-uk","12":"tag-united-kingdom","13":"tag-work","14":"tag-workplace-relations-commission"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114763668123144366","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222565","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222565\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/222566"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}