WRC dismisses co-op doctor’s claim for employment rights

An out-of-hours GP’s claim for employment rights has been rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

The WRC ruled it had “no jurisdiction to hear the substantive complaint” under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 because there was no contract of employment in place.

The doctor, who represented himself, had worked on an after-hours roster at Caredoc, typically covering 100 hours per year. He said he was paid an hourly rate for treating medical card patients and reimbursed for private patient fees.

The doctor argued that the arrangement resembled employment rather than self-employment. He said he was assigned fixed rosters and carried out his work in clinics run by the service using their equipment.

The service also provided support staff, including receptionists, drivers, and some nurses, and managed payments from private patients, stated the doctor.

The service, represented by IBEC, denied that such an employer-employee relationship existed.

The IBEC representative put into evidence a contract agreed between the HSE, the IMO, and the Department of Health in July 2023.

It was submitted that GPs are members of the service in accordance with the Caredoc articles of association/constitution and pay a monthly subscription.

The WRC accepted that while there was some control by the service – such as rostering – the overall arrangement did not point to an employment relationship.

“I find that the monies refunded to the complainant cannot be described as wages as they are irregular payments, are not taxed at source, and have not been agreed between the complainant and respondent,” according to the adjudication officer’s decision.

“The complainant, on his own behalf, chases up outstanding payments from private patients.”

The aforementioned contract, which included a clause for out-of-hours provision, “shows that these matters are already the subject of a separate contract.”

“It is questionable then whether there can be a parallel contract of employment between the complainant and respondent,” the decision stated.

As the complainant was claiming employee status, the adjudication officer said the onus was on them to provide the relevant proof of their status as an employee.

“There was insufficient evidence to show that the service is delivered by the complainant as an employee under an employment contract with the respondent,” stated the adjudication officer.

“For the reasons outlined, I find that there was no contract of employment entered into by the complainant and respondent and consequently the respondent is not the employer, in accordance with the Act.”