Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Hair Stylist

Hair Salon

Representatives

 Solicitors

Not present

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-00018322-001

05/04/2018

The Complainant was employed as a Hair Stylist. She contends that she was unfairly dismissed.

The Complainant made written and oral submissions summarised as follows:                                         She was employed from 29th August 2016 when she was initially taken into the employment on a trial basis. She was in continuous employment from then until 9th February 2018. A document which she believes was a written contract of employment was given to her in February 2017 but she was definitely employed there since 29th August 2016. She had not received negative feedback from her managers until around 2nd February 2018 when in a one to one with the owner he told her she need to log off the till and get more email addresses of clients.   Then after a particularly busy day on 9th February 2018, the owner called her into the staff room and told her that going forward there is no longer work for her there.   She was stunned and when she asked why he said her work was not up to scratch. She reminded the owner that she had come in on her own time for training, he replied “too little too late”. The Complainant was upset and shocked.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing so I base my findings on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant. I accept the Complainant’s evidence that her employment was continuous from 29th August 2016.   I note that she received a verbal warning about her performance in or around a week before her dismissal.  On 9th February 2018 the Complainant was dismissed on the basis of poor performance.   While she had some knowledge of the Respondent’s dissatisfaction with her performance, she was not afforded due process in the matter of her dismissal.     Statutory Instrument S.I. 146 of 2000 lays out the basic procedures which should be afforded to employees in disciplinary situations, such as the right to know the charges against them, the right to be heard, the right to representation and the right to appeal any decision made. The Complainant in this instant case was not given the benefit of due process in respect of these rights and natural justice.                   In those circumstances I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.