By Evelyn Cullen
IN a landmark case which is being hailed as “the most seismic change for professional musicians in living memory”, Donegal musician Matt McGranaghan has won a dispute against his former employer over his employment status.
Matt McGranaghan, a former fiddle player for top country music star Michael English, was awarded almost, €44,000 for unfair dismissal and breaches of employment rights after a tribunal rejected claims that the musician was a contractor working “gig to gig” for six years.
The case shines a spotlight on the issue of ‘bogus self employment’, which is said to be “rife” across various sectors in Ireland, in particular wihtin the arts, media and construction, whereby employers deliberately mis-classify a worker’s employment status to pay less tax.
In a lengthy dispute that officially started in May 2020, when Castlefinn musician Mr McGranaghan triggered a scope investigation into his employment status, and culminated on August 15 of this year in a ruling in his favour at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which found that he was in employment with the Mark English Band – MEPC Music Ltd., – something the company disputed.
Speaking to the Donegal News this week, Mr McGranaghan said he faced a system that is “stacked against workers”.
“I had a huge fear of initiating the question of my employment status for fear of being sacked,” he said.
“There’s this culture in the music industry that you’re lucky to have a job at all and that it can be taken away at any moment. Many workers are in a constant state of anxiety,” he added.
But after seeing too many incidences of this power being abused to exploit workers, together with his representative Martin McMahon, who “smelt a rat of corruption”, Mr McGranaghan decided to take a stand.
After six years of working with MEPC, without reasonable employment rights such as a written contract, paid leave, fair breaks, health insurance, or any kind of job security, and in advance of raising the scope inquiry, Mr McGranaghan approached the management of MEPC in February 2019 to raise the issue of acquiring employment status and the rights that go with it.
He was categorically told by Mr Paul Claffey, one of the company directors, on two occasions that it was a ‘non-runner’ and “not the way it’s done in this industry”.
Mr McGranaghan then proceeded with the scope investigation which found in his favour that he should have been in the ‘Class A’ status of insurable employment rather than Class S, which applies to self-employed workers.
In June 2020 MEPC Ltd., proceeded to appeal this finding through the Social Welfare Appeals Office, a unit that operates independently of the Department of Social Protection but is under the aegis of the minister whom it must report to every year.
After discovering that if he partook in this appeals process, the case would effectively become a dispute between MEPC Ltd and the State, with Mr McGranaghan only serving as a witness, Mr McGranaghan decided not to partake in this appeals process.
The appeal proceeded with effectively a “private meeting” between MEPC and the Social Welfare Appeals Office, without the involvement of Mr McGranaghan or the Department of Social Protection.
The results of this appeal were not returned until January 2023, when it overturned the finding of the scope investigation which had determined that Mr McGranaghan had employee status.
However, in a subsequent hearing through the WRC on January 30 this year, was proven to have done so on the basis of false information.
Mr McGranaghan together with Mr Martin McMahon subsequently put together a 156 document “to appeal their appeal” which they sent to the Ministers for Social Protection and Justice, the Ombudsman as well as the Chief Appeals Officer, and proceeded to seek recognition in
the Workplace Relations Commission.
“We had to put them under oath to get the truth,” said Mr McGranaghan referring to the fact that the Social Welfare Appeals Office does not operate under oath, while the WRC does.
Several items from the appeal were found to be false including, a statement by MEPC that Mr McGranaghan was paid by Paul Claffey Tours rather than MEPC Ltd for shows performed in Portugal a few times a year, which would have diminished the working relationship between Mr McGranaghan and MEPC Ltd.
Bank statements and photocopies of cheques produced at the WRC hearing showed that these payments to Mr McGranaghan for his work were all made by MEPC. Mr Granaghan’s payments were made every Friday ‘like clockwork’, as would be the case for someone in full-time employment.
A further claim by MEPC that Mr McGranaghan was “paid by gig” was shown to be false when Mr Claffey admitted that work such as learning new songs was carried out at home by Mr McGranaghan, payment for which was covered by the “fee negotiated”, effectively making Mr McGranaghan a hybrid worker.
The WRC decision in favour of Mr McGranaghan on August 15 is the first time a ruling delivered by the Supreme Court in October 2023, which distinguishes employees from contractors, has been applied in principle.
The Supreme Court ruling states that the question of whether a worker is an employee should be resolved by reference to five simple yet elegant questions.
Mr McGranaghan could easily answer yes to the first two questions which are about being paid for work done and carrying out the work yourself, rather then subcontracting it, which he said, “puts you well on the way to employment”.
“It’s time to change the culture around employment in the music industry” said Mr McGranaghan.
“I’m always telling musicians to stop saying they go out to play music. Children go out to play, we go out to work” he added.
“There’s still so much to be done to regulate the industry,” he said.
“We may have won the battle but we haven’t won the war,” he added as he continues to campaign to blow the whistle on bogus self-employment and the exploitation of workers.”
Meanwhile, it remains to be seen what the Minister for Social Protection will do with the information she now holds in regard to the false evidence presented in the Social Welfare Appeals Office Appeal, in the form of the 156-page document sent to the Department on February 22, 2023.
A follow-up letter is being sent this week by Mr McGranaghan requesting action.
Receive quality journalism wherever you are, on any device. Keep up to date from the comfort of your own home with a digital subscription.
Any time | Any place | Anywhere
SUBSCRIBE TO CURRENT EDITION TODAY
and get access to our archive editions dating back to 2007(CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO SUBSCRIBE)