ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015708
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Hair Stylist | A Hair Salon Owner |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00020430-001 | 09/07/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015,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).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant started working as a hair stylist for the Respondent on 16 December 2016 She was dismissed by the Respondent on 10 January 2018 with one week notice and her employment ended on 13 January 2018. The reason given at the time of her dismissal was for absence due to illness Her pay was a weekly gross salary of €160.00 Following her dismissal, she received a replacement job on 27 April 2018 Her loss of income arising from the dismissal was 14 weeks
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No appearance |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
There was no appearance by the Employer/Respondent at the Adjudication hearing. The Employer/Respondent was however represented by a solicitor who also did not appear. As there was no appearance, the Employer/ Respondent’s solicitor was contacted by the WRC and the solicitor confirmed that he was on notice of the hearing, but he would not be attending the hearing as he was consulting with another client. The Adjudication proceeded in the absence of the Employer/ Respondent. The WRC complaint was initially brought against the trading name of the hair salon business however in both correspondence between Respondent and Complainants’ solicitors and the Companies Register, the owner of the hair salon business as opposed to the trading name cited on the proceedings, was identified. In light of this and because the Respondent had a solicitor on record for these proceedings who was on notice of the Adjudication hearing but failed to appear, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s application to amend the title of the complaint is one that is properly made. I therefore amend the title of the decision under section 39 (2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, in order to correct the name of the employer concerned. On being satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing I proceeded to hear the evidence of the Complainant in relation to her complaint. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I am satisfied that there has been a failure to justify the decision to dismiss the Complainant and that the dismissal is unfair. I find the complaint of unfair dismissal to be well founded and I make an award in respect of losses arising from the dismissal, namely 14 weeks loss of salary.
Award: €2240 |
Dated: 11/12/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
|