![\"RTE\u0301](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/0_CC-RTE-RALLY4.jpg\")
RTE\u0301 logo sign<\/p>\nA former bogus self-employed worker at RTE\u0301 has lost his claim to retrospective pay and holiday entitlements from the broadcaster as a result of the misclassification of his employment statusRTE\u0301 logo sign<\/p>\n
A former falsely self-employed worker at RTE\u0301 has lost his claim for back pay and holiday entitlements from the broadcaster due to the misclassification of his employment status over a six-year period.<\/p>\n
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear complaints made by RTE\u0301 <\/a>employee, Joseph Kelly, regarding his previous employment status as they were submitted outside the statutory timeframe.<\/p>\n Mr Kelly alleged that he was initially required by RTE\u0301 <\/a>to register as a contractor with Revenue when he began working with the national broadcaster in September 2012.<\/p>\n READ MORE: Patrick Kielty makes self-deprecating joke on BBC 5 Live return after Cat Deeley split<\/a>READ MORE: Patrick Kielty’s family reveal key moment they thought Cat Deeley marriage was over<\/a><\/p>\n He claimed he missed out on entitlements to annual leave, sick leave, public holidays and incremental salary increases as a result of being forced to become self-employed.<\/p>\n Represented by lay advisor, Martin McMahon, Mr Kelly sought to have his loss of earnings for a period of just over six years rectified and the necessary adjustments made to his current salary scale, reports the Irish Mirror<\/a>.<\/p>\n Eight separate claims, lodged with the WRC on October 9, 2024, were brought under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.<\/p>\n However, solicitor for RTE\u0301, Se\u0301amus Given of Arthur Cox LLP, argued that the recognisable period given the six-month statutory limitation of the legislation governing claims to the WRC was from April 10, 2024.<\/p>\n Mr Given contended that Mr Kelly had been adequately compensated and received all his public holiday and annual leave entitlements during the relevant period. He also asserted that the WRC lacked the authority to hear or extend the deadline for lodging a complaint beyond a 12-month period.<\/p>\n The WRC was informed that Mr Kelly was employed as an independent contractor in September 2012, earning \u20ac200 per day as a media content coordinator before becoming an RTE\u0301 employee on 12 November 2018.<\/p>\n He currently holds a position as a news coordinator, placed at point 12 on a 14-point salary scale ranging from \u20ac37,567 to \u20ac59,862.<\/p>\n Mr McMahon highlighted that the issue of false self-employment among RTE\u0301 workers was under scrutiny by an independent law firm and the Department of Social Protection.<\/p>\n He informed the WRC that Mr Kelly was oblivious to these reviews, which led to RTE\u0301 having to pay approximately \u20ac30,000 to the Department of Social Protection to regularise his PRSI contributions.<\/p>\n Mr McMahon stated that this also resulted in Mr Kelly missing out on entitlements such as Sunday and public holiday pay, as well as annual and sick leave, and other benefits that permanent employees receive.<\/p>\n He alleged that Mr Kelly continues to suffer due to the repercussions of his initial employment misclassification. Mr McMahon said the complainant had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve these issues.<\/p>\n He contended that Mr Kelly was attempting to rectify and regularise his entitlements so as not to suffer any loss due to the error, which RTE\u0301 acknowledged it had made.<\/p>\n In his judgement, Mr Harraghy highlighted that Mr Kelly had supplied extensive documentation regarding the context and background of his claim, as well as his efforts to seek resolution with his employer.<\/p>\n The WRC adjudicator stated it was evident that both Mr Kelly and Mr McMahon had dedicated a significant amount of time and research to the matter.<\/p>\n He noted that all the issues raised in his complaints pertained to the period of his employment status up until November 2018, during which he was not granted any of the rights typically accrued by an employee.<\/p>\n However, Mr Harraghy clarified that his role was to apply the law to the facts, but he could only consider complaints submitted within the statutory timeframe stipulated by the relevant legislation.<\/p>\n He pointed out that WRC adjudication officers were not authorised to alter timeframes or accept complaints that fell outside the legal time limits.<\/p>\n For this reason, Mr Harraghy declared he had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints lodged by Mr Kelly.<\/p>\n During a two-day hearing held in December 2024 and June 2025, RTE\u0301 was accused of engaging in “sharp practice” and trying to “run down the clock” on a commitment to compensate those who had lost money due to false self-employment.<\/p>\n Mr Kelly revealed that upon joining the broadcaster in 2012, the HR department instructed him to register as a sole trader, which consequently barred him from pursuing internal positions at RTE\u0301.<\/p>\n A senior HR manager at RTE\u0301, Angela McEvoy, stated the station had accepted a ruling by the Department of Social Protection regarding Mr Kelly’s PRSI insurability.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, Ms McEvoy dismissed Mr McMahon’s assertion that RTE\u0301 had encouraged Mr Kelly to misrepresent himself to Revenue.<\/p>\n Mr McMahon informed the WRC that it was “not acceptable” for RTE\u0301 to pledge adherence to an expert report’s recommendations concerning bogus self-employed workers whilst now arguing Mr Kelly’s case was “out of time”.<\/p>\n For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage <\/strong>here<\/a><\/strong> and <\/strong>sign up to our daily newsletter<\/a><\/strong> here.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A former bogus self-employed worker at RTE\u0301 has lost his claim to retrospective pay and holiday entitlements from…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":352448,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3092],"tags":[51,897,31952,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-352447","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"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115045918517950248","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352447","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=352447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352447\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/352448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=352447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=352447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=352447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}