Thread by @williamhboney1

'EMPLOYMENT STATUS GROUP' (ESG)

In November 1999, the Organizing Officer of the Communications Workers Union (CWU) wrote to the then Minister for Labour, Trade & Consumer Affairs Mr. Tom Kitt. The Organizing Office expressed his deep disappointment that the Minister refused >

to meet with him to discuss, as he put it, that "‘Motorbike Couriers, are against their will being classified as self-employed’ and ‘Whilst Revenue and Social Welfare have for the reasons of tax purposes and Social Welfare payment, classified Motorbike Couriers as selfemployed, >

they do not necessarily see this as prejudicing any future determination of the nature of employment of Couriers".

At the same time and totally separate to the CWU, I was asking why, as a motorcycle courier, I was classified as self-employed. I had no doubt that I was an >

employee and that the Company I worked for were 'gaming' the system by calling me self employed. In my naivety, I though that Revenue would be delighted to have a person come forward and blow the whistle on bogus self employment. Boy was I wrong.

Revenue told me it was a >

Social Welfare matter, Social Welfare told me it was a Revenue matter. Eventually, after much toing and froing, Revenue told me that a representative for Courier Companies had made a good argument that ALL couriers, van motorcycle and pushbike, were self-employed and that was >

why they were classifying all couriers as self-employed.

In July 2000, I contacted the Scope Section of the Department of Social Welfare. Scope make 'insurability of employment' decisions based on all of the available evidence and also on legal principles handed down in various

court judgements over the years. Scope said that they would make a decision on whether I was an employee or self-employed. I wrote a letter to Scope formally requesting an 'insurability of employment' determination.

At the same time I wrote to the then Chairperson of the >

Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Jim Mitchell and asked him why was the PAC investigating bogus self employment in the construction sector and not in other sectors. The PAC had instructed Revenue to carry out widespread investigation into bogus self employment in the construction >

sector. Over 60,000 cases were examined over the course of a year and 20% had been found to be bogus self employed. The Comptroller & Auditor General ordered Revenue to repeat the exercise a year later and again 20% were missclassified as self-employed in the construction >

sector. As approximately 10% of couriers were members of the CWU, I also contacted the CWU and informed them that I had requested a Scope Section determination on my employment status.

On 10th August 2000, Jim Mitchell forwarded onto me a reply he had received from the >

Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. This is the very first mention of the Employment Status Group (ESG). It is also the very first public mention of a secret tax arrangement between Revenue and Courier Company owners. >

This is an astounding admission from the Chairperson of the Revenue Commissioners. In the 23 days since I had requested a Scope Section determination on my employment status, IBEC, Revenue, Dept. of Finance, Dept. Social Protection, ICTU and the CWU had met to specifically >

discuss my case whilst it was under determination by the Scope Section. That the ESG was exclusively established to discuss the specific case I was making to Scope was confirmed sometime later by the PAC secretary >

It was confirmed by Scope that prior to the 'inaugural meeting' of the ESG Courier Company representatives had sought and been refused an 'Off the record' meeting with Scope to discuss the case I was making. Courier companies got their 'off the record' meeting with the ESG. >

I'm going to take a break here for a while, this thread will continue later today.

The CWU who were present at the inaugural meeting of the ESG, wrote an internal report explaining exactly what had happened at the ESG -

"The main task was to get all those represented around the table to engage in a >

constructive look at the whole issue of employment status and to progress toward some criteria which will resolve this issue. This was a difficult task as generally the view of IBEC, Finance and Revenue was that the STATUS QUO SHOULD REMAIN. The status quo is where a worker has >

a disagreement over his/her employee status they can take a case to the High Court and seek a legal definition. This has happened in many cases such as the famous Denny case".

And that was exactly the purpose of the Employment Status Group, it was a cabal of vested interests >

who met immediately after I requested a Scope decision, and before the investigation had begun, to issue the Political Policy that -

a) The Status Quo should remain
b) The worker must be forced to the High Court to seek a fair hearing.

This DID NOT happen in the famous >

Denny case. In that instance, the Scope Section had made a determination that the worker was an employee and not self employed, that was appealed by Denny to the Social Welfare Appeals Office who had upheld the Scope Decision. It was further appealed by the company to the >

Higher Courts where the Scope decision was vigorously defended not by the individual employee, but by the Minister for Social Welfare.

That my case was specifically discussed by this high powered cabal of vested interests is confirmed in the CWU report.

>

The Denny Case is at the crux of why IBEC, Revenue & Finance were opposed to me having a fair hearing of my case in the states insurability of employment process. For years Revenue had been agreeing tax deals with specific industries and employers to classify all their employees>

as self employed specifically to evade employers PRSI. The Denny case exposed one of these deals where Revenue had agreed to classify all demonstrators as self-employed. It is worth noting that Revenue had been vehemently opposed to the re-classification of demonstrators as >

employees and had refused to accept the Scope determination in the Denny case. Essentially, Revenue see themselves as the ultimate authority on employment status but they are not, it is entirely the responsibility of the Dept. of SW to make insurability of employment >

determinations. Following the Denny case, it was incumbent on Revenue to revisit all of these specifically tailored tax agreements and apply the precedents and case law arising from the Denny case, but again Revenue did not. Instead they continued to arrange specific tax deals >

with selected employers. The agreement reached with Courier Company representatives in the Burlington Hotel is one of these deals where a non compliant industry was absolved of all past non compliance and protected the industry from all future higher court precedent and case law>

The ESG took the precedent and case law of the Denny case and put them in a booklet called a 'Code of Practice'. It is a voluntary code of practice which reduced precedent and case law to a 'choice' for employers to implement or ignore as they wish. This voluntary 'Code of

>

Practice' does not form part of Scope Section determinations which are entirely based on precedent and case law. It does not form part of Employment Appeals Tribunals which are also entirely based on case law and legal precedent. However, Revenue and the Social Welfare Appeals >

Office DO RELY on this Political Policy of the Employment Status Group to make insurability of employment determinations, thus rendering case law and legal precedent to second place behind Political Policy.

What the ESG did was to sit in judgement of the Higher Courts and
>

overrule the determinations of Higher Courts.

To close, Scope said I was an employee, the SWAO overturned the decision. Just yesterday, Revenue yet again ignored the explicit determinations of the Higher Courts and restated it's position of classifying all couriers as >

self employed. The ESG Political Policy doesn't just apply to couriers, it applies to all workers who seek an insurability of employment decision.

https://twitter.com/williamhboney1/status/1062395609901158400

@threadreaderapp unroll please.