Complainant

Respondent

Parties

A Hairdresser

 A Hair & Beauty Salon

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-00027203-001

21/03/2019

The Complainant is non-national and was employed as a part-time Hairdresser from 1^st April 2017 to 1^st March 2019 with the Respondent. She worked between 8 and 16 hours per week.

The Complainant went on maternity leave in August 2018. On 10th February 2019 she opted for a further 16 weeks unpaid maternity leave.

She was asked to come in to work on an ad hoc basis for 3 to 4 hours a week for a few weeks while on unpaid maternity leave. On 11^th March 2019 she came in to see a client. The Respondent told her she had been sacked from 1^st March 2019. There was no reason for this. She never asked for her P45 nor did she give any resignation letter. Her P45 issued to the Revenue while she was on maternity leave. She did not receive any notice.

At the same time, the Respondent sacked all the other staff and brought in contractors. There was another part-time stylist and a hairdresser that rented a chair in the salon.

The Complainant will finish her unpaid maternity leave shortly and needs to look for work. She is breast-feeding her baby.

The Respondent says the Complainant was working as an employee part-time with the Salon from 1^st April 2017.

The owner says she met the Complainant to discuss her date of return to work in February 2019. The Complainant wanted to take additional maternity leave. She asked the Complainant what she intended to do and whether she would return to work after her unpaid leave. The Complainant did not say what she was going to be doing. Later the Complainant asked for her P45 as she had no medical card and wanted to apply for job seekers benefit. The Respondent then issued her P45.

The Complainant has been replaced by another employee since March 2019. The Respondent disputes there was a dismissal and says the Complainant wanted to leave her employment.

I have heard the evidence of the parties and considered their written submissions.

Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 as amended provides that a 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. Section 6 (2) of the Acts provide that without prejudice to the generality of Section 6 (1), the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purpose of the Act to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one of the following:

………………………………………

 (f) the employee’s pregnancy, attendance at ante-natal classes, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected therewith,

(g) the exercise or proposed exercise or proposed exercise by the employee of a right under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 to any form of protective leave or natal care absence, within the meaning of Part IV of that Act, or to time off from work to attend ante-natal classes in accordance with S15A (inserted by S8 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004) or to time off  from work or a reduction of working hours for breastfeeding in accordance with S15B (inserted by S 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004) of the first-mentioned Act,

……………………………………..

EC Council Directive 92/85/EEC provides that pregnant workers may not have their employment terminated at any time covering the period from when the pregnancy begins to the end of their maternity leave “save in exceptional circumstances not connected with their conditions”.

The burden of proof rests on the Respondent to show the dismissal did not result wholly or mainly from the Complainant’s pregnancy and exercise of her rights under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 as amended.

It is accepted by both parties that the Complainant sought to take additional maternity leave in February 2019, when her maternity leave ended. The Respondent and an employee of the Salon have given evidence that the Complainant then sought her P45 as she was not eligible for job-seekers benefits. The parties have produced text messages sent at the time regarding the ad hoc hours which the Complainant was offered by the Respondent during this period. The Complainant’s P45 was sent to Revenue on 1^st March 2019. The Complainant says she was unaware of this and only discovered this on 11^th March 2019, when she attended work. The Complainant was not given any notice of dismissal or reason for dismissal. She did not work for the Respondent after 11^th March 2019. She did not give any written resignation. On balance, I prefer the Complainant’s version of events and these are supported by the texts between the parties. The Respondent has not discharged the burden of proof.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed due to her pregnancy and matters connected therewith pursuant to S6 (2) (f) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015.

The Complainant was on additional maternity leave until 10^th June 2019. It will take some time for her to find alternative part-time work. Her hours of work average at 5 hours per week at ten euro per hour. It is just an equitable that she be awarded 3 month’s financial loss of 650 euro together with one week’s notice of 50 euro. I direct payment of 700 euro by the Respondent to the Complainant.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed due to her pregnancy and matters connected therewith pursuant to S6 (2) (f) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015.

It is just an equitable that she be awarded 3 month’s financial loss of 650 euro together with one week’s notice of 50 euro. I direct payment of 700 euro by the Respondent to the Complainant.

Pregnancy, dismissal, matters connected therewith, part-time stylist