The Irish Labour Court has held that migrant workers that do not hold valid immigration permissions cannot bring complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Labour Court.
The Labour Court considered two cases against a hotel, where both complainants’ visas expired in 2013 and 2014 but they continued working in a hotel. Their applications for renewal were delayed, along with similar applications, while they awaited the outcome of a case (to which they were not a party) before the Supreme Court. They eventually received their new visas in 2019.
In August 2016, both complainants brought a number of complaints to the Work Relations Commission alleging unfair dismissal. The hotel claimed to have dismissed them due to their failure to obtain renewed visas. The complainants were successful before the WRC and were awarded €10,000, in addition to their statutory redundancy entitlements.
The Labour Court initially declined to hear the appeal as the hotel has been stuck off. This decision was overturned by the High Court, and the matter was returned to the Labour Court for consideration.
The hotel alleged that the complainants’ contract of employment was illegal, and therefore they could not enforce their statutory employment rights. The Court, therefore, turned to Section 2B of the Employment Permits Acts 2003-2014 which allows undocumented migrant employees take ‘civil proceedings’ to recover money owed by an employer.
To determine the meaning of ‘civil proceedings’, the Court looked to the High Court judgement in Hussein v Labour Court and the Supreme Court decision in Quinn v the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. The Court found that employees without valid immigration permissions could only seek compensation in the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court. It was of the view that ‘civil proceedings’ did not include claims brought before the Labour Court as it was a quasi-judicial tribunal exercising a specialist jurisdiction, but it was not such a court in law.
The Court concluded that the complainants’ contracts were void and unenforceable, therefore they had no locus standi before the Labour Court. The complainants had to invoke the common law remedy provided for in Section 2B where work was carried out under a contract both parties believed to be valid, but subsequently was found to be void.