RT by @lukeming: Dear @sinnfeinireland @SocDems @labour @AontuIE (Not PBP, PBP are asking these questions),

You guys are the opposition, you need to opposition.

This is from the Supreme Court in the recent #Karshan decision:

278. While the question of whether a decision of the Social Welfare Deciding Officer of August 2008 that similarly positioned drivers were not employees generated any form of estoppel was not before this court, it strikes me at a very general level that Karshan would have a legitimate grievance if it were to be penalised by one arm of the State for conducting its business in accordance with the law as interpreted and applied by another department of government. Whether that can or cannot be said to be so will depend on the facts of the case before the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the specific agreements the subject of that decision and the exact composition of the assessments. That may also be relevant when it comes to the costs of these proceedings, which have now extended over four separate tribunals..."

Despite losing, #Karshan is going to avoid costs and penalties because of something 'wrong' the Social Welfare Appeals Office and senior SW management are doing, what could that possibly be?

OH LOOK, @ReginaDo told you all exactly what the dept was doing 'wrong', and not just wrong 'UNLAWFUL' and that they have no intention of stopping.

Precedential group and class decisions to determine the employment status of group/classes of workers are unlawful.

🐦🔗: https://nitter.cz/williamhboney1/status/1726930339736494209#m

[2023-11-21 11:47 UTC]