ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001809

Dispute for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22nd June 2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 4^th February 2016, the complainant referred a trade dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The complainant was a sales assistant and the respondent is a retailer of luxury shoes.

The dispute was scheduled for adjudication on the 22^nd June 2016. The complainant and her partner attended. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication and also waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant outlined that she commenced employment with the respondent on the 5^th October 2015 and that she was summarily dismissed on the 5^th January 2016. She outlined that this role was her “dream job” and that she had performed very well in the months she worked for the respondent. Customers had praised her performance, including senior employees of the department store in which the respondent concession is based. There had been no issues with colleagues and she had worked with a manager and three sales assistants on the team. The complainant had worked for nine years with another luxury retailer, rising from sales assistant to store manager. She wished to develop her career in larger stores, and moved to a high street retailer for a short period before taking the opportunity of working for the respondent.

The complainant outlined the Christmas period had been very busy, giving an example at coming into work at 6am on the 26^th December 2015 to prepare the store for the sales. She had performed well and achieved outstanding sales targets. Her period of probation was due to come to an end on the 5^th January 2016. She was working on the shop floor on this day and no issue arose. She received a telephone call from her manager and asked to go to the stock room in the basement. She met the manager there and another senior manager, whose full name she was never provided with. She was made stand during this meeting. She was handed a letter to say that her employment was immediately coming to an end, citing as reasons “poor customer service” and “unsupportive teamwork”. The complainant asked for details of any complaints but the respondent refused to provide any such details. There had been no warnings or issues ever raised with her. She was required to leave immediately and her employment ended. The complainant emailed a regional manager to appeal the decision, but received an email back to say that it could not be appealed.

The complainant outlined that this had a devastating effect on her and that she had lost confidence in her abilities. The respondent had treated her very unfairly, in particular after she had worked so well over a busy Christmas period. She had only recently commenced employment with another luxury retailer, having sought employment after her dismissal.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent did not attend the adjudication, nor did it make submissions in advance of it.

Findings and reasoning:

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a sales assistant in the respondent concession at a prominent department store. The respondent is a high profile luxury shoe retailer. It did not dispute the complainant’s evidence that she had exceeded her performance targets or that she had worked well in the team of sales assistants. No evidence was provided by the respondent to substantiate the contents of its letter of the 5^th January 2016. The respondent dismissed the complainant summarily, by summonsing her to a meeting in a basement storeroom where she was told to leave immediately. Even had the performance issues listed in the letter been true, they could not have justified the manner of the dismissal. It follows from these findings that the complaint succeeds. In assessing redress, I take account of the period of time in which the complainant sought employment until eventually succeeding. I also take account of the impediment brought by the respondent’s actions to the complainant’s chances of obtaining alternative employment in her area of expertise, i.e. luxury fashion goods. The respondent raised but refused to substantiate serious performance issues regarding the complainant. Given the profile of the respondent, this failure had a detrimental impact on the complainant. Taking these factors into account, I recommend an award of €8,000.

Decision:

The Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the Industrial Relations Acts require that I make a decision in relation to the above dispute. Pursuant to the findings outlined above, the respondent shall pay to the complainant the amount of €8,000 as redress for the within dispute.

Dated:   14^th September 2016