ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001434
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00002011-001 | 18/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/06/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s)
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
I commenced employment with the Respondent on the 28th of April 2015 as a laser skin therapist. I did receive a copy of the Employee Handbook at that time which clearly sets out the company's disciplinary procedures. I was told from the start that I was doing an amazing job and that they were very happy with how I was doing. I received texts and praise for being the top sales person on a number of occasions. In August 2015, I was nominated employee of the month and I received a €100 gift voucher. The week before my dismissal, I was told by the owner, that if she could get more staff like me she would be delighted. In September and October 2015, a number of discussions took place between myself and my manager, regarding the protocols I had used in treating some clients. She informed me that she had received 3 complaints from clients who alleged that, following treatment by me, they had incurred some burning to their skin. At no stage following these discussions was I issued with any formal warnings. Verbal or written. On the 28th of October 2015, I was summoned to a meeting with my manager. I was not informed in advance as to the nature of this meeting or that the outcome could result in my dismissal. I was not afforded the opportunity to have a representative with me, in breach of the company's own disciplinary procedures. I was informed by the manager that following 'investigation' that she was dismissing me with immediate effect. As there was no proper investigation, I was extremely shocked and upset. I subsequently appealed this decision in writing to owner, which she rejected. I felt so unfairly treated that I had no option to refer the matter to the WRC. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent operates a leading laser hair removal and skin specialist clinic. The Claimant joined the clinic in April 2015 as a Laser & Skin Specialist. In the period September/October three clients who were treated by the Claimant made complaints of serious burns during the course of their treatment.
In the case of the first client, the Claimant accepted that protocols were not properly followed and apologised for her mistake. In the case of the second client, she admitted she had not listened to the client’s concerns. She accepted that she had received sufficient training and refresher training to carry out the treatments required. She was advised that her employment was at risk of termination. In the case of the third client, an investigation showed that the Claimant had failed on three different protocols in relation to the specific treatment of this client.
The Respondent had grave concerns as a result of these incidents and a review of the Claimant’s situation was initiated over a number of days. The Claimant was invited to a meeting in this regard and advised prior to it what it purpose was. The facts of the three cases were presented to the Claimant and she acknowledged that actions reflected gross negligence on her behalf.
As a result of the review of the incidents it was decided to terminate her employment for gross negligence. In November, the Claimant wrote to the Respondent seeking compensation.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Issues for Decision:
Was the termination of the Claimant’s employment, fair and reasonable in the Circumstances?
Legislation involved:
The Industrial Relations Act 1969
Decision:
I have considered the submissions of both parties. The Claimant argued the details of lack of fair procedures, particularly in regard to representation and minutes of meetings. The Respondent decided that no formal sanctions would apply during the review/investigation. However, the facts of the case in regard to the three clients are not in dispute. This resulted in legal and financial consequences for the Respondent as a result of the Claimant’s failure to use proper protocols in each of the cases.
I find that the termination of her employment was fair and reasonable in this case. I do not find the claim well founded and it fails.
Dated: 24 November 2016