Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Zoe  Mckell

Pink Frog Limited Blush House Of Beauty

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00041714-002

24/12/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00041714-003

24/12/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00041714-005

24/12/2020

The Complainant’s complaints are that she was discriminated against by being unfairly dismissed because of her family connection.  She contends that the Respondent breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 by omitting from her contract the number of hours she was required to work and her employment status. She also claims payment for annual leave and minimum notice.

The Complainant was employed as a Junior Therapist/Nail Technician from 31 January 2020 to 29 June 2020. Her stepmother was employed by the same employer.  She had a disagreement with the owner and handed in her resignation on 23 June 2020.  When the Complainant came into work on 29 June 2020, she was told there was a black bag of items belonging to her family member.  She was stopped from coming into the shop.  She had refused to clean the salon before returning to work as she was required to do so without pay.   Later she received a letter from the owner that said she had dismissed herself.

The Complainant believes she was unfairly dismissed because of her connection with her stepmother.  She also claims she should have been paid one week’s notice pay, calculated at €150  and 12 hours annual leave, calculated at €120.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

CA-00041714-002   Employment Equality Act 1998

The Complainant claims she was discriminated against on the grounds of Family Status.                               The definition of Family Status as provided for in the Act is as follows:

“family status” means responsibility –

(a) as a parent or as a person in loco parentis in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, or

(b) as a parent or the resident primary carer in relation to a person of over that age with a disability which is of such a nature as to give rise to the need for care or support on a continuing, regular or frequent basis”.

Section 6 of the Act provides inter alia that discrimination shall be taken to occur where a person is treated less favourably than another person on any of nine grounds including “that one has family status and the other does not (“the family status ground”).

The Complainant in this case has not prosecuted a case on the grounds as defined in the Act.  I therefore find that her complaint is not well founded.

CA-00041714-003  Payment of Wages Act 1991

Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the Complainant is owed €120 for 12 hours annual leave and €150 for one week’s payment in lieu of notice.

CA-00041714-004  Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

No evidence was provided of a breach of the Act.  I find the complaint to be not well founded.