The Design and Crafts Council Ireland has been ordered to give a jewellery instructor a permanent contract after the Workplace Relations Commission said the council had been “evading their legal responsibilities” under employment law.

The Kilkenny woman made a complaint under Unfair Dismissals Act after being told she was an independent contractor. The purpose of the Act is to protect employees from being unfairly dismissed from their jobs by laying down criteria by which dismissals are to be judged unfair and by providing an adjudication system and redress for an employee whose dismissal has been found to be unfair.

Jeweller and goldsmith Marie Wilgaard-Kelly had complained under the Unfair Dismissals Act 2001 against the national craft organisation, which is funded by the Department of Enterprise. The tribunal heard she started working for the council as a trainer on a course in August 2016 after tendering for the position, with a further contract extension to 2019. She then won another tender for the role of jewellery and ceramic technician in 2018, the WRC was told.

Ms Wilgaard-Kelly wrote to the council in April 2021, raising the question of her employment status, and received a reply the following month stating that she was an independent contractor. The council also told her at this point that the programme she was teaching “would not be running after her contract ended” that July, but that a tender process would reopen in 2022.

The council maintained its position that she was not an employee after receiving a letter from her solicitor.

In December 2021, however, the Department of Social Protection determined Ms Wilgaard-Kelly’s status should be classed as PRSI A, which the adjudicating officer in the case, Brian Dalton, noted was “a class for those who are employed under a contract of service and who are employees”.

Ms Wilgaard-Kelly, who represented herself at a hearing in July, argued that there was a “mutuality of obligation” in her contract with the council. She said she reported to a manager and was required to carry out a training role in circumstances where the council was obliged to provide her with work. Her hours were fixed and linked to a “set payment like a salary” and, although she had discretion to take up other work, it could only happen “outside the hours and period as set down in the contract”, she said.

Solicitor Alastair Purdy, who appeared for the council, argued there was no mutuality of obligation and that Ms Wilgaard-Kelly had entered into a “business contract to provide services” which was “fee-based”. She “did work for other parties and was free to do so”, he said.

“The complainant, prior to entering the contract, had sought independent legal advice and signed her contract knowing that in substance it was a contractor role and was not a position for employment,” Mr Purdy added.

In his decision, Mr Dalton found that the council’s position that there was no mutuality of obligation was “not credible” on the basis of the contract between the parties. He wrote the Design & Crafts Council was “obligated to provide work to the complainant and the complainant is obligated to carry out that work under the control of the respondent. In all respects it reflects a technical trainer employment contract”.

Mr Dalton noted further that Ms Wilgaard-Kelly was forbidden from subcontracting her work without prior agreement from the council’s chief executive; and that any additional work she undertook could not interfere with the delivery of the contract.

“The power balance in any relationship must be considered. In this case the employer insisted on how the relationship must work. The complainant, while highly skilled, works in a market where opportunities … are few and far between. The reality is she had no choice but to accept those terms as set out in the contract and to sign the contracts,” Mr Dalton wrote.

“The factual matrix is probative of a contract of service, and I determine that the complainant is an employee,” he wrote. He ruled that the council’s conduct was unreasonable, and that Ms Wilgaard-Kelly had been unfairly dismissed. He ordered the employer to re-engage the complainant for a 17-hour working week at an hourly rate of €25.50 with a contract of indefinite duration with a start date of 7 July 2021.

Mr Dalton also ordered that the complainant be provided with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment within a month of the issue date on the decision, 24 August this year.

It’s only the second time this year the WRC has ordered a remedy other than compensation in an unfair dismissal claim.

NB – This is a guide for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have an issue requiring legal advice, please contact any of the team at Nolan Farrell & Goff LLP, whose numbers can be found on our website, or email