Filipino Swimming Instructors in Ireland Win Wage Dispute

A group of swimming instructors from the Philippines, brought to Ireland with the promise of employment, have successfully reclaimed wages that were unfairly deducted. This decision followed an investigation by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which found insufficient evidence to support a swimming school’s claim of spending €3,000 on training each instructor.

One instructor recounted being lured by the prospect of a better life in Ireland, only to face wage reductions under the threat of dismissal. These instructors were part of a larger group of six who pursued claims against the swim school in Ennis, Co Clare, towards the end of last year.

Five of these instructors have secured close to €12,000 for violations under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The sixth member of the group is awaiting the publication of their case by the WRC. All instructors involved are Filipino nationals, with the swim school’s legal team claiming it was the first European company to secure work permits for Filipino swimming instructors.

Employment and Training Claims

Two instructors commenced their roles with the swim school in June 2022, followed by four more recruited from the Philippines in August 2022, arriving in Ireland by January 2023. However, within months, three instructors, referred to as Mr B, Ms R, and Ms M, were dismissed during their probationary periods for “financial reasons.” The school claimed it invested heavily in training the instructors, costing €3,000 each, a claim the WRC found unsubstantiated.

The school’s owner reportedly delivered the training personally, providing instructional videos. Despite these assertions, the WRC found no evidence to support the €3,000 training cost.

Wage Deductions and Employment Agreements

The school justified wage deductions by citing a training and pay deductions agreement signed by the instructors in the Philippines. However, these agreements were presented in English without Tagalog translations, and the instructors had no opportunity for legal consultation before signing.

The instructors maintained they were already qualified and that the only additional training involved learning to conduct lessons “the company’s way.”

Additional Employment Challenges

Another instructor, Ms S, remained with the company during the hearings and reported being pressured into accepting a €100 weekly pay cut for 16 weeks. She stated that fear of dismissal compelled her to agree to the reduced wages, unaware she had the option to refuse the agreement.

Ms Montanelli, representing the company, argued financial difficulties necessitated the pay cuts, which Ms S and others accepted. However, Ms S testified that she believed refusal would lead to termination, a sentiment shared by other staff who had seen colleagues let go under similar circumstances.

WRC Decision and Compensation

Adjudicator Orla Jones found the employer’s claims regarding training costs lacked supporting evidence and that the agreements signed were unenforceable due to the absence of legal advice or translation. She further noted that €3,000 charges were applicable if the instructors chose to leave, not if employment was terminated.

Mr B, Ms R, and Ms M were each awarded €2,307.68 for unpaid wages and notice pay. Ms Jones also ruled that €1,600 deducted from Ms A’s wages was unlawful, ordering reimbursement and awarding her €1,626.90 for unpaid administrative work. Ms F, another instructor, received €1,789.59 for unpaid administrative hours, bringing the total compensation directed by the WRC to €11,939.53. The decision to anonymise the company and employee names stems from related proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which require privacy.