Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91308 Case Number: AD9179 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: THE CUTAWAY HAIR SALON - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 76/91, concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
finds no justification for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it accordingly upholds.
The Court therefore rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91308 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7991
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: THE CUTAWAY HAIR SALON
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. B.C. 76/91, concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company in late
August, 1990, as a hairdresser. The employer contends that when
she was taken on with a guarantee of employment until Christmas
1990, at which point a review of the business would be undertaken.
This review of business was required as the salon was a new outlet
opened by the Company and initial funds were due to expire at that
stage. On 27th February, 1991, the worker concerned was "let go"
as business was not picking up as anticipated. The worker
contended that she was unfairly dismissed and referred the matter
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On 14th May, 1991,
the Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation:-
"Having heard the submissions from both parties and having
given full and careful consideration to the points made by
each I have come to the conclusion that the worker's
employment was terminated by the Employer not on account of a
fall-off in business but because she continued to request
from the Employer details of her tax situation and details of
earnings. I therefore conclude that the employment was
unfairly terminated. I note also that up to the time of the
investigation the employer had not complied with the very
reasonable request of the worker to give her details of her
earnings in order that she could pursue her application for a
Building Society Loan on a house she had decided on.
My recommendation is that the Employer should pay to the
worker the ex-gratia sum of #250 and that this be accepted by
her in full and final settlement of all claims on the Company
in relation to the termination of her employment."
(The worker concerned was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The worker concerned rejected the recommendation and on 28th May,
1991, appealed to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 6th
August, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Initially, the worker received no wage slip with her
wages. When she queried this, she was told that things would
be sorted out. In October, 1990, she was provided with a
number of back dated wage slips, however, they contained no
details of tax or P.R.S.I. contributions. The workers
P.R.S.I. number was also incorrect. The employer told her not
to worry as things would be sorted out and all her
contributions were being made.
2. At this time the worker concerned was attempting to
purchase a house. She required details of earnings in order
to apply for a mortgage. She requested her employer to
provide a copy of her P.60. The employer agreed to this
however, he did not provided the certificate as requested. As
a result, the worker contacted the tax office to get a copy.
Upon contacting the tax office she discovered that no records
of her contributions existed. The tax office subsequently
contacted the employer. A few days later on 27th February
when the worker concern arrived for work she was handed a
letter by the employer informing her that she was being let go
due to a lack of business. She was also provided with a P.60
backdated to October, 1990, and a backdated letter of
termination. She was also requested to inform the labour
exchange that she had only been working since October, 1990,
and that she had only worked in the Company's other salon i.e.
not the salon that she in fact worked in.
3. Prior to being dismissed the worker contends that the
other staff in the shop harassed her because she had been in
contact with the tax office. She understands that at least
one member of the staff was receiving unemployment benefit
whilst working at the salon.
4. The worker concerned was the lowest paid member of staff
even though she had the greatest number of customers and
generated the most money. If business was poor then surely
one of the other hairdressers would have been let go rather
than her. The worker believes that she was unfairly dismissed
because of her questioning her tax situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was employed in a new salon. She was
promised work until Christmas, 1990, at which stage a review
of business would be undertaken. On 27th February, 1991, she
was let go because business was not picking up as anticipated.
She was given one week's notice and was paid all monies owed
to her. She was also provided with a P.45 (later amended due
to an error) and a reference.
2. The worker concerned, during her employment with the
Company, did make some inquires regarding her tax. The
employer told her that this was in order. As a sole trader,
the employer makes an annual return and the worker was
included in the appropriate end of year return.
3. The employer believes that he did not explain the events
clearly to the Rights Commissioner, hence the Rights
Commissioner's conclusion that she was dismissed because of
requests for details of tax and not lack of business. The
employer has since closed the business as he could no longer
sustain the losses being incurred.
4. The employer at no stage refused to comply with a request
for certification of earnings for a building society loan
application. The worker's mother, who had made the request,
was asked to bring in the form in question to be completed.
She never did this at the time. The first time the employer
saw the form was at Rights Commissioner's Office.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
finds no justification for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it accordingly upholds.
The Court therefore rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
3rd September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.