ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024544
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Hair Stylist | No Appearance |
Representatives | Self | Mícheál Leydon Outlook Accountants |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00031186-001 | 29/09/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00031186-002 | 29/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant started working for the respondent in April 2018. She was pregnant at the time. On the 13th of December, the complainant text the respondent stating that she was in hospital with a pregnancy related matter. The respondent asked the complainant to send a screenshot of her hospital admission and a letter from the hospital, if she was going to be admitted. The complainant gave birth the following day, two months prematurely. She did furnish the respondent with the requested documentation. In May 2019, the complainant received a text message from the respondent stating she was due back to work in July. The complainant responded by stating that she would be returning to work in July. Unfortunately, the week before she was due to return, she suffered a back injury. X-rays revealed a bulging disc and fracture of the tailbone. The respondent stated that she needed sight of a doctor's certificate showing proof of injury together with a letter from the treating hospital. That request was followed up by a voicemail stating that the complainant’s injury was very inconvenient. The complainant left all of the requested documentation with the respondent. On the 25th of July, there was a staff meeting that the complainant could not attend due to her injury. The respondent asked her to attend for a private meeting on 29th July 2019. During the course of that meeting, the complainant was told that the salon she worked in was closing but all of the staff were being moved to the sister salon which was located a short distance away. The respondent asked the complainant when she thought she would be able to return to work. On that date, the complainant was not able to give her a date. The respondent then asked the complainant how many days she wanted to work in the new salon. The complainant stated that she was happy to continue doing her normal 2 days a week. In August the respondent requested a return to work date from the complainant. She was unable to give her a date at that time. The respondent stated that it was actually quite convenient that she wasn't able to return to work because there wasn't much work for her. Her employment was then terminated. The complainant requested a letter of termination from the respondent but to date that has not been forthcoming. The complainant states that she is owed for seven public holidays that she has not been paid for. She states that she is owed € 240.00 (1/5 of 7 bank holidays) The respondent did send a letter to the complainant headed “breakdown of payment” however the content of the letter was blank. When the complainant spoke to the respondent about the letter she was told that the salon was now closed and that the new salon would not be able to pay her the money she was owed. On the 7th of December 2019 whilst the complainant was waiting in a queue to visit Santa with her children, she bumped into the respondent. The respondent became verbally abusive towards her and told her that she was an embarrassment to herself. The complainant has heard nothing from the respondent since that date. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied that the respondent entity is in liquidation and that the liquidator was on notice of the date, time and venue for the within hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA 31186-001. Based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant, I am satisfied that the complainant is owed € 240.00 which said figures equates to 1/5 of seven public holidays. The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant € 240.00 CA 31186-002 Based on the complainant’s uncontested evidence, I am satisfied that the respondent failed to follow any procedures whatsoever before terminating the complainant’s employment. In doing so the respondent breached the complainant’s right to a fair process. The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €7,000.00 |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA 31186-001. The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant € 240.00 CA 31186-002. The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €7,000.00 |
Dated: 1st September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words:
|