UD432/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIMS OF:                                                                                  CLAIM NOs

Ms Edel Woods                                                                                  UD432/2013

                                    -claimant

-v-

Pzazz Hair Design Limited

                                    -respondent

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:        Ms M. Levey B.L.

Members:        Mr. F. Moloney

                        Mr. F. Keoghan

heard this claim at Dublin on 31^st March 2014

Representation:

Claimant: Ms A. Keane BL instructed by Ms E. Woodlock,

Able Solicitors 72 Tyrconnell road Inchicore road Dublin 8

Respondent: In persons

Background:

The claimant had worked as an apprentice hairdresser for four years in a salon prior to working in the respondent salon. She maintains that she was fully qualified but “fell down on two haircuts”. The claimant commenced working with the respondent on 28^th November 2010. She had an agreement with the respondent that she would repeat the third and fourth year of her training although she maintains that she was qualified.   Her understanding was that she would repeat years three and four and at the end would do a final assessment. Then she would be either offered to continue work in the respondent or would look for work elsewhere.  

On 5^th November 2011 she was asked to work to cover another employee’s shift which she did. On 6^th November she asked one of the directors (DS) what day / days off she could take off that week.   He took the opportunity to have a discussion with her. He told her that it was approaching the second year anniversary of her employment and that her employment was to come to an end.

The claimant told the Tribunal that she did not get a final assessment. She waited to do a final assessment and she was not assessed to see if she had reached the required standard.   She was not told that she had not met the required standard.

The respondent’s case is that the claimant was assessed throughout her employment and that her assessors deemed that she did not make the standard required for a saloon such as theirs.

They told the claimant that she needed to attain a certain level of competency or they could not continue to keep her past the two years. They discussed the final assessment and that at that point it would be decided whether it would be appropriate to continue on or not. The claimant did not do a final assessment because the individuals who trained her informed him that she did not meet the required standard.

Determination:

The Tribunal having heard the evidence in this case find that there was an agreement from the outset between the parties that the claimant would repeat years three and four of her training and that the respondent would assess her at the end of the period. There was no formal assessment at the end of the period. The assessment was an on-going assessment and the claimant was aware of this. The respondent in their own way decided that the claimant could not continue as she did not meet the standard required for a saloon of their type.

The Tribunal determines that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. The claimant must have known that her employment was not guaranteed to continue if she did not meet the required standard. She did not meet the required standard. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 To 2007 fails.  

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)