In 2002, Mohammad
Younis arrived in the state from Pakistan to work as a chef in the restaurant Poppadom
in Dublin, owned by his cousin, Amjad Hussein. Since then, Mr. Younis alleged
that he has been grossly mistreated, working seven days a week with no holidays
to earn “pocket money,” paid in cash. He has been undocumented since his
original work permit expired in 2003, and he claims that Mr. Hussein has
retained his Pakistani passport. In 2011, the Labour Court found that he had
been exploited, and awarded him €92,000, including over €86,000 in back pay
since September 2002. Mr. Hussein appealed this decision, stating that he
wasn’t properly legally represented in the original trial, Mr. Younis had made
false claims in the original trial and that the counsel had just accepted
whatever story they were told without investigating the veracity. He also
claimed that Mr. Younis was well aware of his undocumented status, and had the opportunity
to return to Pakistan at any point.
Yesterday,
the High Court ruled that the award must be quashed because of Mr. Younis’s
illegal status in the State. Mr. Justice
Gerard Hogan, who delivered the opinion, acknowledged that Mr. Younis had been “the
victim of the most appalling exploitation by his employer,” but that “While
this conclusion seems to me to be inescapable on the application of established
legal principles, it is not a result which yields much satisfaction.” In 2003,
the Oireachtas ruled that “a contract of employment involving a non-national
was substantively illegal in the absence of a permit.” Mr. Justice Hogan felt
obliged, therefore, to quash the award, since Mr. Younis had been working here
illegally, but he sent a copy of his judgment over to the “Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the
Seanad and the Minister for Employment” for review, since the judge believes
that the original policy of 2003 was not intended to be used as a an excuse to
exploit illegal workers.
There are several
articles from the Irish times reporting on this decision from the High Court,
and they discuss the potentially devastating effect of this ruling on illegal
workers in the State. Mr. Justice Hogan stated, “If, however, that legislation
[the policy of 2003] is applied in a rigorous and unyielding manner it might
have serious consequences for vulnerable migrants who found themselves
exploited by unscrupulous employers.”
Brophy Solicitors
05.09.12
The employment law(which is also called the labor law) states that the legal adviser can impose some employment standards, for the minimum socially acceptable conditions under which employees or contractors will work. This might be helpful for Mr. Younis. For more details click here
ReplyDelete