You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Social Insurance >> Insurability for PRSI

Insurability for PRSI Case 1

Question At Issue:

Insurability for Pay-Related Social Insurance (PRSI).

Background:

Following an allegation by a farm labourer (‘the engaged person’) that employment contributions had not been paid in respect of his employment since 1989, a Deciding Officer determined that the employment was insurable under the Social Welfare Acts at the Class A rate of Pay-Related Social Insurance (PRSI). The employer made an appeal against that decision.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended unaccompanied, and the engaged person attended at the request of the Appeals Officer.

The engaged person reported that he had worked on a farm for two elderly brothers. He stated that, initially, he had been helping out on a temporary basis only but was asked subsequently to stay on; a weekly wage was agreed and he was told that social insurance contributions would be paid.

He outlined how his wages had increased over the years. He reported having asked occasionally about his social insurance and was given to understand that everything was in order. He reported that, following the brothers’ deaths, he was retained by the appellant (their nephew) to work on the farm, and his wages were increased.

The appellant, one of two executors to his uncle’s will, stated that he was taking the lead role in the administration of his uncle’s estate. He denied that any commitment had ever been given by his uncle or himself that PRSI would be paid. The Appeals Officer pointed out that, irrespective of what had or had not been said, the matter had to be determined on the facts and the evidence; the parties were not free to determine unilaterally their working relationship. The appellant asserted that the engaged person worked for other people as well as on his uncle’s farm, drawing hay and bringing stock to mart. He reported that when he visited the farm he had concerns as to the health of some of the livestock. He took advice from his solicitor and, ultimately, arranged for the sale of all the stock. He stated that the farm is now rented. The engaged person, in response, reported that he had no land of his own, and that he helped his brother or neighbours from time to time. He denied that he had worked for other farmers.

The Appeals Officer asked the appellant to comment on the replies he had given to the Social Welfare Inspector (recorded on Form INS1) which supported the contention that the engaged person was an employee. The appellant argued that the questions on the form were not appropriate. He asserted that he had pointed this out |at the time but was advised that he must complete it nonetheless.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer did not accept that the appellant was forced to tender any information in the interview with the Social Welfare Inspector, or was placed under any duress. He noted that the questionnaire used by the Inspector was the standard form used in all such investigations, and was satisfied that the appellant was at liberty to answer the questions as desired. He considered that it was not material whether occasional work was carried out for other farmers. He was satisfied that the evidence showed that the engaged person worked on the farm under the direction of the appellant’s late uncles and latterly the appellant himself, and was remunerated as reported on the file submitted by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. He concluded that the employment took place under a contract of service arrangement and as such was insurable at the Class A rate of PRSI. Accordingly, he determined that the appeal could not succeed.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document