#RTE in the Public Accounts Committee 27th April 2021.

Issues regarding #BogusSelfEmployment Analysis -

The first pertinent question on @bogusselfemployment was from @PaulMcauliffe. Paul asked about the Eversheds Sutherland report which had found 157 'contractors' out of 433 https://twitter.com/BrianStanleySF/status/1387321479587635200

were misclassified as 'Self-employed'. That's a very high rate of misclassification, slightly over 36%.

Paul specifically asked if @RTE had robustly responded and if @RTE was correctly complying with Revenue guidelines.

@RTE's HR director confirmed the results of the Eversheds

Sutherland report and stated that reviews and meetings with managers had taken place to ensure compliance 'Going Forward'

But that doesn't exactly answer the question Paul asked, the true factual position is that @RTE was NOT compliant with regulations and not compliant spanning

back many years.

@RTE's HR director also claimed that the Eversheds Sutherland review was 'inclusive and transparent' but it wasn't, we'll come back to that.

@CathMurphyTD was the next up and Catherine got right to the nub of the issue straight away. Catherine pointed out

that the ES review didn't result in any of the high earning contractors being deemed more akin to employees and asked if those who had been misclassified were likely to have been misclassified from the start of their employment.

This is a really important point, @RTE are

claiming that the circumstances of the workers 'changed' over the years thus resulting in the workers being employees and not self-employed.

This approach from @RTE is a damage limitation ploy. RTE is attempting to limit any liability to Revenue and SW. This cannot be up to

@RTE to decide for themselves, it is not fact, it is conjecture and until a full investigation is carried out, the full liability of @RTE cannot be known.

Catherine then raised the key issue for workers, Revenue and Social Welfare and that issue is 'Retrospection'.

As Catherine pointed out, the ES process was completed 2 years ago and still retrospective repayment of employer's PRSI is unresolved.

@RTE's HR Director confirmed that there is a Revenue Audit ongoing and that there have been previous audits. This begs the question, how come

the very high rate of 36% bogus self employment was not picked up in previous Revenue/SW audits, why did it take an independent outside agency to uncover what has been going on for years?

The HR Director confirmed that the Revenue Audit had been 'triggered' by the ES report.

@ImeldaMunster was next with questions. Imelda asked was the Dept. SW also investigating, when was a conclusion expected and what kind of bill, if any, RTE was expecting.

In reply, @deeforbes_dee stated that @RTE was not a bogus employer, but clearly with a bogus self employed

rate in excess of 36% among contractors, one can only conclude that RTE is a bogus employer.

@deeforbes_dee stated that RTE does not know when or if a bill will issue to RTE, but as confirmed later in the hearing, RTE have already paid an undisclosed interim payment in respect

of liabilities arising from the ES report, therefore we can be damn sure that a bigger bill is going to land.

@RTE's Commercial Finance Manager confirmed that the Dept. of SW only began an investigation in 2020 and again this was on foot of the ES report and the Revenue audit.

Next up with questions was @mattcarthy and I have to say, Matt's grasp of the subject matter and some of the nuances involved was excellent. Matt asked why somebody who essentially works full time for RTÉ would have become a contractor in
the first place and the historical

basis for it?

Matt referred in particular to 7 high paid contractors.

@deeforbes_dee replied -

"Of the seven contractors Deputy Carthy speaks about are brands in their own right and they also
have the ability to earn money outside of RTÉ. >

They are contracted by RTÉ to provide a particular service for a particular programme on a particular day. They are not full-time employees of RTÉ, and as a result, they are contractors as opposed to being employees"

The contradictions in this statement are all over the place

and Matt was quick to point them out but before I get to them, back up a little, previously, RTE stated that the conditions of contractors had changed over time thus resulting in them becoming employees. But surely this rationale applies to high earning contractors also.

Back

to Matt. Matt asked @deeforbes_dee to explain if there is something preventing direct employees of RTÉ having alternative sources of income from promotional activity, working in the local chip shop or whatever else.

Ms Forbes replied that the area of additional income that

does happen for RTÉ employees is
typically book publishing, for example. She stated that if a member of staff wants to publish a book, again provided that it is agreed with his or her manager.

Matt pressed Ms Forbes

on this point asking if employees are not entitled to do any other work outside of RTÉ and if contractors are given carte blanche to do whatever else they want.

RTE's HR Director replied with -

"They have more freedom to act, but they have a commercial value to RTÉ as

well as a commercial value outside of RTÉ"

So the answer to Matt's question is that both employees and contractors have to seek permission from RTE. Contractors may have more 'freedom' but that's not the same as full freedom and also the high paid contractors are required

to give personal service as part of their contracts, which is an indicator of employee status.

Matt asked who benefits (que bono) from the contractual situation, Ms Forbes replied that she thinks both parties do.

It's worth noting at this point that Revenue have already

informed the PAC that employment status is not a matter of choice, one must fit the legal criteria.

Matt went on to ask if 7 of the top earners all had the same agent and if this was a factor in their contractual arrangements. Interesting question with no answer forthcoming.

The Chairperson of the PAC had some questions of his own, he asked if any money had already been paid to Revenue. RTE confirmed that an initial (Undisclosed) payment had already been made.

The Chairperson asked if Eversheds Sutherland had spoken to each contractor individually.

Astoundingly, @RTE's HR Director replied -

"No, they would have spoken to their managers"

This approach reveals a lot. It reveals that it was fairly common knowledge among managers that all was not right with employment practices in RTE. It reveals that the ES review was not

to the same standard one would expect of a properly conducted review where each worker should be interviewed separately. It represents a major flaw in the process and one which must be addressed by both Revenue and the Dept. SW.

Matt Carthy then asked how much RTE had paid to

Revenue so far. RTE did not reveal a figure.

@RTE's appearance at the PAC throws up more questions than answers. It is indisputable that RTE was non compliant with the 21 year old 'Code of Practice' and with the case law handed down by the courts over the years. Bigger

questions exist for Revenue and the Dept SW.

How come previous audits didn't reveal an atrocious 36% bogus self employment rate?

Why did it take an ES report to force, first Revenue, and then SW to investigate non compliance within RTE?

Will Revenue & Dept SW conduct a

root and branch investigation into employment practices in RTE?

It is my opinion that RTE is politically compromised by non compliance. It is my opinion that RTE will get off very lightly because Revenue and SW will not pursue RTE to the fullest.

Only time will tell. TY.