ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017145
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Barber | A Hair Salon |
Representatives | Self Represented | A Director |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00022237-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint / dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The Complainant went out sick and on her return was dismissed and she claimed the dismissal was unfair. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a Barber from January 29th 2018 to August 21st 2018. On the 7th of August she went to hospital with a bad leg and was certified sick. She was told the Salon was under pressure and came into work to help out. She stated the owner had a bad attitude to employees, did not give her a P45, that she was unfairly dismissed and in law how can people throw some one out of work and she was seeking justice. The Complainant did not get social welfare as a result of these actions. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant was never dismissed and her job remains open. The Complainant was kept on the roster and informed of her work hours but did not show up for work. The Complainant did not supply medical certificates. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
At the Hearing the Complainant sought at least 8 weeks pay in compensation for her dismissal. The Complainant advised that she had taken the case under the Unfair Dismissals Act and wanted a legal redress. The Complainant was informed by the Adjudicator that she had taken the case under the Industrial Relations Act and when informed that the IR Act was a voluntary Act and that the recommendation of an Adjudicator was not subject to legal enforcement, the Complainant felt the Hearing was not being impartial. The Complainants core case was that she was dismissed unfairly but the Respondent stated that they had never dismissed the Complainant. As the evidence of the two parties is at odds with each other I recommend that, to bring closure to the issue, the Respondent pay the Complainant a goodwill gesture of 200 Euros. |
Dated: June 14th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: