Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Hair Stylist

Hair Salon

Representatives

Self represented

 B.L.

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-00015051-001

15/10/2017

The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed after just one year’s service. The Respondent contends the Complainant did not have one year’s service and does not qualify to take her complaint under the Act.

The Complainant stated that she was taken on in employment by the previous owner on 20th August 2016. She stated that the current owner called her aside on the evening of 22nd August 2017 to say that she had to let her go. There was an argument between the Complainant and the owner then as to whether the Complainant had one year’s service. The Complainant expressed the view that the owner could not do that to her – letting her go.

The Respondent stated that her records show that the Complainant started on 29th August 2016 and therefore did not have the required one year’s service to avail of the Act. Without prejudice to this preliminary point, the Respondent had to let the Complainant go as her Accountant had advised that the business was not viable with the number of staff employed. The Respondent operated a last in first out policy.

Section 2 (1) (a) provides that except in certain circumstances, the Act shall not apply to employees with less than one year’s continuous service with the employer. The Respondent has submitted payslips indicating that the Complainant did not start in the employment until 29th August 2016, thus rendering her ineligible to pursue her claim under the Act. However, I find that while the placing of the Complainant on the formal payroll may have commenced in week beginning 29th August 2016, the Complainant has submitted clear and cogent evidence of her commencement date as being 20th August 2016. I find that her commencement date in the employment is 20th August 2016 and her final date in the employment was 25th August 2017. She therefore has the required service for lodging her claim under the Act.

Section 6 (1) of the Act provides that the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed

“to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”.

The substantial grounds in this instant case cited by the Respondent were the financial circumstances of the employment and the requirement to make a position redundant.

Section 6 (4) (c) of the Act provides that the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed

“not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(c) the redundancy of the employee”.

The Respondent gave evidence that the Accountant advised that the business was not viable unless a position was made redundant. The Respondent operated a last in, first out policy in selecting the redundancy.  I find that while the communications surrounding the termination of the Complainant’s employment was not in line with good practice in employer / employee relationships, The Complainant was dismissed due to redundancy and the dismissal is deemed not to have been unfair.