Exploitation case worker not entitled to €92,000 award

Sunnyisland

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0831/high-court-exploitation.html

The High Court has ruled that a Pakistani man is not entitled to a Rights Commissioner award of €92,000 because his employment contract was substantively illegal.The ruling will have serious consequences for many other undocumented migrant workers experiencing breaches of workplace rights.
Mr Justice Gerald Hogan noted that the Rights Commissioner had found that Muhammad Younis had been the victim of the most appalling exploitation by his employer by being underpaid and forced to work excessive hours.
However, he said Mr Younis had no effective recourse in respect of that exploitation.
Mr Younis had been working for Amjad Hussein of the Poppadom restaurant in Newlands Cross in Dublin.
The judge said he was concerned that the Employment Permits Act 2003 had perhaps produced consequences that were not foreseen or envisaged, because it meant that any employment contract involving a non-EU migrant worker without a work permit was substantively illegal.
He said specifically it may not have been intended by the Oireachtas that undocumented migrant workers, not least a vulnerable one such as Mr Younis, should be effectively deprived of the benefit of all employment legislation by virtue of his illegal status, even though he or she may not be responsible for or even realise the nature of the illegality.
He said he intends to transmit a copy of his decision to the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation so that the Oireachtas may give consideration should it think fit to do so, to the policy implications for the 2003 Act as manifested in his judgment.
Siobhán O'Donoghue of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland described the ruling as devastating for Muhammad Younis and for all undocumented migrants.
She pointed out that Mr Younis had entered the country legally with a work permit, but that the employer who had exploited him had rendered him illegal by failing to renew his work permit.
Ms O'Donoghue called on the Oireachtas to address the problem with the Employment Permits Act urgently.
Speaking through an interpreter, Mr Younis said that he could not believe that he will not get what he is owed, despite the fact that the Labour Court and the Rights Commissioner confirmed that he had been abused.
Lawyers for Mr Hussein said he completely denies any allegation that Mr Younis was "exploited" or that he engaged Mr Younis in "forced labour" of any nature.
In a statement they said: "Mr. Hussein has always maintained that Mr Younis's claim against him was unfounded, and accordingly, we welcome the decision of the High Court quashing the determinations of the Labour Court.
"We would also draw attention to the fact that Mr Hussein, as noted by Justice Hogan in his decision, was not represented at the hearing before the Rights Commissioner, where the wild allegations of Mr Younis were accepted at face value".


To long to read,

The high court has ruled that a Pakistani man is not entitled to a Rights Commissioner award of €92,000 because his employment contract was substantively illegal.Even though it said he was the victim of a most appalling discrimination.

What,s your opinions on this ? My opinion is I feel sorry for the man but if your here working illegal your going to be abused,You cant have it both ways.

kincsem

It wouldn't happen to a TD.

El Guapo!

The boss who exploited him is a dickhead for doing it.
But at the same time, the guy was working illegally. Maybe if he was legit this wouldn't have happened to him.

Nodin

Dean09 wrote: »

The boss who exploited him is a dickhead for doing it.
But at the same time, the guy was working illegally. Maybe if he was legit this wouldn't have happened to him.

If you bothered reading the case, you'll note he was here legally, but his employer never renewed his visa, thus rendering him illegal.

El Guapo!

Nodin wrote: »

If you bothered reading the case, you'll note he was here legally, but his employer never renewed his visa, thus rendering him illegal.

No need to be a smart-arse about it.
I mis-read that bit so, apologies. The employer is even more of a dickhead.
Still, the guy should have made sure all his papers were in order.
It's still not right what was done to him. I pity the chap.
Maybe that's a lesson to all other migrant workers to ensure their paperwork is up to date and above board.

Sunnyisland

Nodin wrote: »

If you bothered reading the case, you'll note he was here legally, but his employer never renewed his visa, thus rendering him illegal.

I do have sympathy for the man but Is it not up to each person Individually to know whether they have visas or not to work in a country,and can the employer not be sued now ?

My name is URL

I'd be shocked if he doesn't appeal the decision. Honestly can't see it ending there, and if it does then it's quite worrying.

Nodin

realies wrote: »

I do have sympathy for the man but Is it not up to each person Individually to know whether they have visas or not to work in a country,and can the employer not be sued now ?

Its up to the employer to renew the visa. He asked the employer to renew it and he didn't. He can't renew it himself. As a result he's at the mercy of the man exploiting him. It's just been found that the employer cannot be sued, due to the legislation. Theres a thread on it here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056389262&page=7

Sunnyisland

Thank you senior Nodin, just reading there that during that time he was paid just 51c an hour between 2002 and 2005, ****ing hell.

Nodin

realies wrote: »

Thank you senior Nodin, just reading there that during that time he was paid just 51c an hour between 2002 and 2005, ****ing hell.

It is indeed total wankery. There is also the problem of trying to change employer under the current law, which can find the employee told that their visa will be revoked if they 'try anything', thus trapping them. It was on primetime a while back.

Biggins

1. The man should not have been illegal - but I deeply suspect it was not his fault!
2. Was the employer letting the visa lapse on purpose? Just to be able to further exploit?
3. Regardless of legal or illegal presence, I believe that every human has the right NOT to be exploited to the near point of slavery (I'm surprised this point alone hasn't been brought into the case under EU law, in some fashion.)
4. For his actions, the employer should still be held accountable by the state, penalised in some way.

Seanchai

Has anybody got a picture of this Amjad Hussein individual, formerly owner of the Poppadom restaurant in Newlands Cross in Dublin? I have failed to find one online. Somebody in this thread said Khan's Balti House is now in that spot. I hope Khan's Balti House in Donnybrook has nothing to do with Amjad Hussein....

Society would be well served if we could publicise where in Ireland Amjad Hussein is currently working from. If he was willing to exploit another human being (his cousin, mind you) like this for years, I fear to think what he was passing off as food in his establishment.

Most people would like to know if such a person is operating a business in their area, in order to avoid him.


If Amjad Hussein receives his costs after this, as seems likely from media reports today, it will be stomach turning.

Id love to go up there, order everything off the menu, run up a huge bil, and not pay, see how he F****** likes it.

What a scum bag

MadsL

I'll just leave this here.

http://poppadom.ie/index.php?c=pages&id_page=15

http://www.domainregistry.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&whois=poppadom&id=86&Itemid=105&Search.x=28&Search.y=7


domain: poppadom.ie
descr: Poppadom Limited
descr: Body Corporate (Ltd,PLC,Company)
descr: Corporate Name
admin-c: ABL926-IEDR
tech-c: DAD1-IEDR
registration: 26-July-2005
renewal: 26-July-2013
status: Active
nserver: ns1.novara.ie
nserver: ns2.novara.ie
nserver: ns3.novara.ie
source: IEDR

person: Amjad Hussain
nic-hdl: ABL926-IEDR
source: IEDR

person: Digiweb Hosting
nic-hdl: DAD1-IEDR
source: IEDR

Dublin Takeawy - 276 Harolds Cross Road, Dublin 6 Tel 01 4920020 -
Sligo - 34 O'Connell St - Sligo Tel 071 9147171
Limerick Robert Street, Cornmarket Square, Tel 061 446644, 061 446444

Online reservation form with comments field - http://poppadom.ie/index.php?c=pages&id_page=12

Seanchai

MadsL wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

http://poppadom.ie/index.php?c=pages&id_page=15

http://www.domainregistry.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&whois=poppadom&id=86&Itemid=105&Search.x=28&Search.y=7


domain: poppadom.ie
descr: Poppadom Limited

Dublin Takeawy - 276 Harolds Cross Road, Dublin 6 Tel 01 4920020 -
Sligo - 34 O'Connell St - Sligo Tel 071 9147171
Limerick Robert Street, Cornmarket Square, Tel 061 446644, 061 446444

Online reservation form with comments field - http://poppadom.ie/index.php?c=pages&id_page=12

Thank you, MadsL. Just to reiterate. People in the Harold's Cross area of Dublin, beware, Amjad Hussain/Hussein has moved to your area:


"Poppadom Restaurant, Newlands Cross. We have moved to Dublin 6 - 274 Harolds Cross Road. Tel 01 4920020"

He's also selling food in restaurants in Sligo and Limerick.

murphm45

Biggins wrote: »

3. Regardless of legal or illegal presence, I believe that every human has the right NOT to be exploited to the near point of slavery (I'm surprised this point alone hasn't been brought into the case under EU law, in some fashion.)
4. For his actions, the employer should still be held accountable by the state, penalised in some way.

(I'll just preface this be saying i'm basing this of what i read on RTE/saw on the news so sorry if i've missed/misinterpreted something)

To be honest i'm surprised by this too. It's odd the DPP haven't done anything about this. It almost suggests that there's no deterent for treating people in this deplorable fashion!

MadsL

Am I right in thinking that the law basically says that an employer can render a contract illegal substantively negating any compensation claims or awards by failing to renew a work permit.

Urgently needs fix, is there any reason why this cannot be passed with retrospective effect so this man can be paid?

(Legal Discussion here)

Biggins

MadsL wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the law basically says that an employer can render a contract illegal substantively negating any compensation claims or awards by failing to renew a work permit.

Urgently needs fix, is there any reason why this cannot be passed with retrospective effect so this man can be paid?

(Legal Discussion here)

Retrospective law reform would require constitutional change I believe (open to be wrong).

dxhound2005

murphm45 wrote: »

(I'll just preface this be saying i'm basing this of what i read on RTE/saw on the news so sorry if i've missed/misinterpreted something)

To be honest i'm surprised by this too. It's odd the DPP haven't done anything about this. It almost suggests that there's no deterent for treating people in this deplorable fashion!

There was news of a criminal investigation reported back in February.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0218/1224311978185.html

Which was the reason Mr Hussain is giving for not engaging with the other processes, it might prejudice his position in that case if it proceeded.

And RTE are reporting that he is denying the allegations against him.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0831/high-court-exploitation.html

Lawyers for Mr Hussein said he completely denies any allegation that Mr Younis was "exploited" or that he engaged Mr Younis in "forced labour" of any nature.

In a statement they said: "Mr. Hussein has always maintained that Mr Younis's claim against him was unfounded, and accordingly, we welcome the decision of the High Court quashing the determinations of the Labour Court.

"We would also draw attention to the fact that Mr Hussein, as noted by Justice Hogan in his decision, was not represented at the hearing before the Rights Commissioner, where the wild allegations of Mr Younis were accepted at face value".

Cee-Jay-Cee

I do feel sorry for the guy but at the same time his case to the rights commission was uncontested and so we're only hearing one side. I'd like to know where they got the figure of 92k from before deciding if I agree he's entitled to it.

kildarecommuter

CJC999 wrote: »

I do feel sorry for the guy but at the same time his case to the rights commission was uncontested and so we're only hearing one side. I'd like to know where they got the figure of 92k from before deciding if I agree he's entitled to it.

The employer would have been notified of the Rights Commissioner hearing in the first instance the Rts Com service would have sent him copies of the claims made against him and after that would have given the employers at least 4 weeks notice on date/time of hearing he chose not to turn up!

Annasopra

CJC999 wrote: »

I do feel sorry for the guy but at the same time his case to the rights commission was uncontested and so we're only hearing one side. I'd like to know where they got the figure of 92k from before deciding if I agree he's entitled to it.

86k back pay +1.5k fine +5k fine

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/3f2a0cfdd0d10ccd80257a6b004e2e1b?OpenDocument

7. So far as the 1994 Act is concerned, the Commissioner had found that Mr. Hussein had not been provided “with any formal documentation in relation to his employment over an extended period of time” as required by s. 3 of the Act. Mr. Hussein was awarded €1,500 compensation to be payable for breaches of that Act.

8. So far as the 1997 Act is concerned, the Commissioner found that Mr. Younis had evidenced “breaches by the respondent in relation to the provision of annual leave entitlements, the provision of public holiday entitlements, the concept of working in excess of 48 hours per week and the failure to provide Sunday premiums and proper breaks.” The Commissioner directed that Mr. Younis be awarded the sum of €5,000 in respect of breaches of the 1997 Act.

9. So far as the 2000 Act, the Commissioner awarded Mr. Hussein the sum of some €86,132.42 in respect of back pay. It would seem inferentially from the terms of the determination that the calculation was based on underpayments from September 2002.

hdowney

It disgusts me that employers can get away with treating people like this. Sure I'll just not bother renewing the visa and then I can have slave labour. Disgusting. I hope yer man takes it to higher European courts cos I am shocked that the courts here found against him.

Mint Aero

Proper order. Many foreigners work knowingly in such circumstances with the intention of collecting what they're owed when they leave. Most cases they're entitled to it but a case like this might discourage others from working illegally like this here.

losthorizon

Mint Aero wrote: »

Proper order. Many foreigners work knowingly in such circumstances with the intention of collecting what they're owed when they leave. Most cases they're entitled to it but a case like this might discourage others from working illegally like this here.

I'm sorry? What makes you think this. For that to happen there would need to be legal action and there does not seem to be many such cases happening as far as I am aware.

Mint Aero

losthorizon wrote: »

I'm sorry? What makes you think this. For that to happen there would need to be legal action and there does not seem to be many such cases happening as far as I am aware.

No there wouldn't, why would legal action need to happen? It's not hollywood. A simple letter from an authority solves a lot of problems.

end of the road

Mint Aero wrote: »

Proper order.

no its not, "proper order" the judge couldn't make any other decisian in relation to the relevant law.

Mint Aero wrote: »

Many foreigners work knowingly in such circumstances with the intention of collecting what they're owed when they leave.

and? maybe they do maybe they don't, but then again you or i can't speak for all cases.

Mint Aero wrote: »

a case like this might discourage others from working illegally like this here.

no, it won't, any employer involved in any type of exploitation should be banned from employing along with other severe punishments if necessary

Mint Aero

end of the road wrote: »

no its not, "proper order" the judge couldn't make any other decisian in relation to the relevant law.

and? maybe they do maybe they don't, but then again you or i can't speak for all cases.

no, it won't, any employer involved in any type of exploitation should be banned from employing along with other severe punishments if necessary

For once we agree does that sicken you?

BrokenArrows

The simple fact is that if he was a legal worker he wouldn't be exploited.

The only reason for an employer to hire illegal workers is because he knows he can pay then less and not give them the same benefits as legal workers.
If he was going to give them the same as a legal worker he would just hire legal workers.

Annasopra

Mint Aero wrote: »

Proper order. Many foreigners work knowingly in such circumstances with the intention of collecting what they're owed when they leave. Most cases they're entitled to it but a case like this might discourage others from working illegally like this here.

Disgusting attitude. His employer was the one who refused to renew his permit and held his passport and he was treated as a slave ffs.

Annasopra

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The simple fact is that if he was a legal worker he wouldn't be exploited.

The only reason for an employer to hire illegal workers is because he knows he can pay then less and not give them the same benefits as legal workers.
If he was going to give them the same as a legal worker he would just hire legal workers.

He was a legal worker at the start. His employer made him illegal.