Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nail Technician

A Beauty Salon

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00012802-001

26/07/2017

On 13 July 2017, the Complainant responded to an advertisement, on an internet jobs site, for a nail technician in a beauty salon. The advertised rate of the position was €450 for a five-day week. The Complainant spoke with the proprietor of the beauty salon, who invited her to attend for a trial day, the following day, Friday, 14 July.

After attending for the trial day, the Complainant sent photographs of her work to the proprietor, who indicated that she was very happy with the trial. The Complainant was informed by the Respondent that she was to commence employment in a full-time capacity the following Monday (17 July). The Complainant was also invited to attend at the salon the following day (15 July), in order to familiarise herself with how the place worked.

According to the Complainant’s evidence, the proprietor was out of the country on holiday but would be back in the salon later in the week (i.e. commencing 17 July) and would discuss details in relation to payment of wages etc.

The Complainant worked a full week, Monday to Friday (17 – 21 July). However, the proprietor did not call to the salon during that week and the Complainant did not receive any wages at the end of that week. The proprietor informed the Complainant that she would be in attendance in the Salon on the following Monday (24 July) but she did not attend.

According to the Complainant‘s evidence, the proprietor called to the salon on Tuesday (25 July). She invited the Complainant out for coffee to discuss matters with her. The Complainant stated that the proprietor informed her she would have to complete an eyebrow course, which the salon would provide in-house, at a cost of €500 to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, she was advised that, taking into account her earnings for the previous week, she owed the proprietor €150 in order to cover the full cost of the course.

The Complainant stated that she informed the proprietor that, while she was willing to do the course, she was not in a position to provide the money up front, as she had just recently arrived in Ireland and this was her first job. According to the Complainant, the proprietor insisted that if she wanted to work in the salon she would have to do the course and provide the upfront fee.

According to the Complainant’s evidence, the proprietor also indicated that for the first number of weeks, payment would be made in cash and the Complainant would not be registered as an employee.

The Complainant stated that following this meeting, she returned to the salon and worked to finish that day. However, as she had, by that time, worked for seven days without any pay and because she was not in a position to fund the upfront cost of the mandatory eyebrow course, the Respondent decided not to return to work.

In further evidence to the Hearing, it was stated that when the Complainant’s mother spoke with the Respondent, in an effort to get payment for her daughter, she (the Respondent) objected to what she perceived as threats and indicated that if these were followed through, the Complainant’s name would be blackened in the beauty industry in the locality and she would not get any work.

Based on the evidence set out above, the Complainant is seeking payment for the time she worked for the Respondent and for which she was never paid.

The Respondent did not engage with the WRC on foot of the complaint. The Respondent did not attend the Hearing, despite having been duly advised.

In the absence of any evidence or representation from the Respondent, the facts of this case, as based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, appear to be straight forward.

Having responded to an advertisement for a nail technician, the Complainant successfully passed a technical trial and was offered full time employment. It is a reasonable expectation of all employees/workers that they will be paid for the time they provide to their employers. From the evidence provided at the Hearing, I am satisfied that the Complainant worked for seven days in the role of nail technician and also attended two further days prior to the commencement of the full time work.

Based on the above I am fully satisfied that the Complainant is owed wages/payment for this work. I find it completely unacceptable that the Respondent should try to nett the Complainant’s wages off against the cost of training, which the latter was being required to undertake. Notwithstanding the fact that the Complainant has a statutory entitlement to be paid for the work she carried out, the evidence presented at the hearing also suggests that there was no mention of this course when the Complainant was initially employed as a nail technician.

Consequently, I find that the manner in which the Respondent treated the Complainant In this instance to be wholly unacceptable and such practices, as are evident here, have no place in the Irish workplace.

Based on the evidence presented and in line with the findings and conclusions are set out above, I uphold the Complainant’s complaint. I find in the Complainant’s favour to the sum of €720.00, representing seven full days worked and the induction day (15 July) which took place prior to the commencement of full time employment (17 July). The calculation is based on a daily rate of €90, which in turn is based on the advertised rate of the position.

Payment of Wages