Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Retail Assistant

A Hair and Beauty Wholesaler

Representatives

John Cashell Cashell Solicitors

Pat McMahon McMahon & Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00029019-001

13/06/2019

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 24 October 2018. She worked as a Sales Assistant until the date she claims she was unfairly dismissed on 3 April 2019.

The Complainant did have a solicitor on record but was accompanied at the hearing by her sister. She did avail of a break in the hearing to gather additional evidence and consult with her sister.

The Complainant’s evidence was as follows:

The Complainant was provided with a contract of employment by the Respondent at the commencement of her employment. She explained that she had taken on a full-time role with the Respondent to assist with payment of her college fees for a beauty course she was enrolled in.

On a date in March 2019 she had a performance review with the Area Manager and Store Manager. The Complainant gave evidence that the review was positive stating she had a good relationship with customers and was building a good relationship with the Store Manager / Team. It is noted that the Complainant did not have a copy of this review at the hearing but had sought a copy of her personnel file by letter dated 3 April 2019 from the Respondent.

On the morning of 3 April 2019, the Area Manager arrived in the store and the Store manager called Complainant to the office. The Complainant did not receive notification of this meeting or its purpose. It was the Complainant’s evidence that at the outset of the meeting the Area Manager accused her of theft. When she enquired further she was told that she was seen taking photo of the daily task sheets. Evidence was presented of the photos at the hearing which reflected a “to do list”. It did not contain any store specific information or commercially sensitive information. The Complainant accepted that she had taken the photo and explained it was to assist her in completing her duties.

The Complainant gave evidence that the Area Manager accused her of having an attitude towards the Store Manager and work colleagues. This was the first time the Complainant was notified of any such complaint. She was not presented with any evidence of these complainants by the Respondent.

The Respondent confirmed her termination and she was asked to leave the store immediately. The Complainant sought clarity as to why her employment was being terminated and was told by the Area Manager that he did not have to give her a reason.

The Complainant noted she was sent a document, after the meeting, entitled “meeting notes” and dated 3 April 2019 but she disputes that these are a true reflection of the meeting. She gave evidence that she was never asked to sign the notes or confirm.

Complainant sought advice and was assisted in writing a letter to the Complainant on 3 April 2019 requesting that the reasons for her termination and an appeal. She also sought a copy of her personal data.

The Respondent replied by letter dated 23 April 2019 stating that the dismissal was done in accordance with the company policy for employees on probation and the matter was closed.

The Complainant gave evidence that she had her final college exams two weeks after the termination and the negative effect the experience had on her and her career. She gave evidence that despite her hard work and initial enthusiasm for the beauty industry she had lost her confidence as a result of the actions of the Respondent and changed career path.

She confirmed she commenced a new role in or around August 2019.

The Respondent’s solicitor sent a letter dated 2 October 2019 stating that it would not be attending the hearing.   In correspondence, dated 23 April 2019, the Respondent stated it was entitled to dismiss the Complainant during her probationary period by the giving one weeks’ notice to that effect, in accordance with company policy for employees on probation.

The Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 does not provide for an employee with less than twelve months of service. Regardless of this exclusion, employees with less than twelve months service are entitled fair procedures in relation to grievance and disciplinary matters.

The Labour Court in Beechside Company Limited T/A Park Hotel Kenmare v. A Worker LCR 21798 held:

“… The Court has consistently held the view that it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

The Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000), which promotes best practice in the conduct of grievance and disciplinary procedures, emphasises the importance of procedures to ensure fairness and natural justice.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was not provided with any details of performance related issues, warnings, grievances or complaints raised. At no stage was she giving a warning that her employment was in jeopardy. She was dismissed without warning, without investigation and representation and without knowledge as to the reasons for her dismissal. Furthermore, her request for an appeal was not responded to.

I am satisfied that the Respondent’s actions in dismissing the Complainant were void of all fair procedures or natural justice.

The Complainant was honest and clear in her evidence and the negative impact the Respondent’s actions have had on her both personally and financially.

I recommend that the Respondent pays the Complainant the sum of €5,600 in compensation for her unfair dismissal.