![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/2543202-913837.jpg\")
<\/p>\nA contractor has been ordered by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay a tractor driver \u20ac500 to settle a dispute over employment during the peak silage season of 2025.<\/p>\n
The worker was employed from 3 April to 18 July 2025 as a tractor\/truck driver, the WRC was told, with his employment ceasing in disputed circumstances. <\/p>\n
The tractor driver submitted a dispute that his termination of employment was unreasonable and unjustified.<\/p>\n
A summary of the workers case stated that he was employed for \u201cabout four months during the peak silage season\u201d as a driver.<\/p>\n
He claimed his employment was terminated without notice and no cause as he was off work due to moving house and the son of the owner was aware of this. He only noticed his employment was ceased when he was on the Revenue website for another reason.<\/p>\n
The tractor driver stated that he got a new house and agreed time off with the son of the owner and that the owner of the company was aware he was taking time off. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe advised he made a number of phone calls to members of the family after he found out his employment had been ceased on the Revenue website and his calls were not answered.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe stated he got no notice of the termination of his employment and he had no contract of employment,\u201d WRC documents state.<\/p>\n
Contractor response<\/p>\n
The daughter of the owner attended the hearing regarding the dispute where she advised she managed the administration of the business. <\/p>\n
In a summary of the employer\u2019s case, she advised the tractor driver was hired for the season and that he missed many days and was off sick on occasion. <\/p>\n
\u201cShe advised he worked three days in the week prior to not turning up for work. She advised her father and brother had no recollection of granting the worker days off.\u201d<\/p>\n
She stated the worker stopped work on 10 July 2025 and called for his holiday pay on 25 July 2025. <\/p>\n
“She advised her brother, like her, was just an employee of the company and would not be authorised to grant time off, as suggested by the worker. <\/p>\n
“She understood the worker went to Spain for a week and was gone from work for almost two weeks and they terminated his employment on Revenue as they understood he had left the employment,\u201d a summary of the case said. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WRC adjudicator said the working relationship between the parties “seems very casual”. \\ Odhran Ducie<\/p>\n
WRC adjudication officer Peter O’Brien said he took all relevant submissions into account, stating that the working relationship between the parties \u201cseems very casual and not governed by any terms of employment or clear understanding of who was authorised to approve time off or who the worker reported to\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe employer representative was clear that the only person empowered to approve time of was her father, the owner the business. <\/p>\n
“The worker gave the view that it was either the son or daughter that he had to liaise with regarding time off. <\/p>\n
\u201cFrom my observation of the situation and explanation by the parties of the events two things are clear; there were no written terms of employment stipulating who the worker reported to and there was confusion about who approved time off. <\/p>\n
“Also, the worker seemed to interpret the relationship with the employer as some form of relationship where he had some control over when he worked,\u201d O\u2019Brien stated in his conclusion.<\/p>\n
In order to bring a conclusion to the dispute he recommended that contractor pay the tractor driver \u20ac500 in full and final settlement of the dispute.<\/p>\n
A contractor has been ordered by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay a tractor driver \u20ac500 to settle a dispute over employment during the peak silage season of 2025.<\/p>\n
The worker was employed from 3 April to 18 July 2025 as a tractor\/truck driver, the WRC was told, with his employment ceasing in disputed circumstances. <\/p>\n
The tractor driver submitted a dispute that his termination of employment was unreasonable and unjustified.<\/p>\n
A summary of the workers case stated that he was employed for \u201cabout four months during the peak silage season\u201d as a driver.<\/p>\n
He claimed his employment was terminated without notice and no cause as he was off work due to moving house and the son of the owner was aware of this. He only noticed his employment was ceased when he was on the Revenue website for another reason.<\/p>\n
The tractor driver stated that he got a new house and agreed time off with the son of the owner and that the owner of the company was aware he was taking time off. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe advised he made a number of phone calls to members of the family after he found out his employment had been ceased on the Revenue website and his calls were not answered.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe stated he got no notice of the termination of his employment and he had no contract of employment,\u201d WRC documents state.<\/p>\n
Contractor response<\/p>\n
The daughter of the owner attended the hearing regarding the dispute where she advised she managed the administration of the business. <\/p>\n
In a summary of the employer\u2019s case, she advised the tractor driver was hired for the season and that he missed many days and was off sick on occasion. <\/p>\n
\u201cShe advised he worked three days in the week prior to not turning up for work. She advised her father and brother had no recollection of granting the worker days off.\u201d<\/p>\n
She stated the worker stopped work on 10 July 2025 and called for his holiday pay on 25 July 2025. <\/p>\n
“She advised her brother, like her, was just an employee of the company and would not be authorised to grant time off, as suggested by the worker. <\/p>\n
“She understood the worker went to Spain for a week and was gone from work for almost two weeks and they terminated his employment on Revenue as they understood he had left the employment,\u201d a summary of the case said. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
WRC adjudicator said the working relationship between the parties “seems very casual”. \\ Odhran Ducie<\/p>\n
WRC adjudication officer Peter O’Brien said he took all relevant submissions into account, stating that the working relationship between the parties \u201cseems very casual and not governed by any terms of employment or clear understanding of who was authorised to approve time off or who the worker reported to\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe employer representative was clear that the only person empowered to approve time of was her father, the owner the business. <\/p>\n
“The worker gave the view that it was either the son or daughter that he had to liaise with regarding time off. <\/p>\n
\u201cFrom my observation of the situation and explanation by the parties of the events two things are clear; there were no written terms of employment stipulating who the worker reported to and there was confusion about who approved time off. <\/p>\n
“Also, the worker seemed to interpret the relationship with the employer as some form of relationship where he had some control over when he worked,\u201d O\u2019Brien stated in his conclusion.<\/p>\n
In order to bring a conclusion to the dispute he recommended that contractor pay the tractor driver \u20ac500 in full and final settlement of the dispute.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A contractor has been ordered by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay a tractor driver \u20ac500 to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":430524,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[164961,72,61,60,13104,43,188050,6465],"class_list":["post-430523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-amy-forde","tag-business","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-machinery","tag-news","tag-silage","tag-workplace-relations-commission"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430523","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=430523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430523\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/430524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=430523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=430523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=430523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}