Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lorraine  O'Driscoll

Triplett Limited

Representatives

Ms Bébhinn Murphy BL instructed by O'Hanrahan Lally D'Alton LLP

Mr William Wall  of Peninsula

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-00052040-001

03/05/2022

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

CA-00052040-002

03/05/2022

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

CA-00052040-003

03/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00052040-004

03/05/2022

The Complainant worked as a housekeeper for the Respondent guesthouse from early 2014 until her employment ended on 5th November 2021.

The Complainant also brought a claim against Ms Claire Tynan however the Respondent in this case has accepted that she was their employee, and the Complainant has raised no objection to this.

The Complainant alleges that she was dismissed on the spot on 5 November 2021. 

The Respondent disputes this and instead argues that the Complainant was sent home after getting upset and chose not to return.

Ms Murphy BL submitted detailed written and oral submissions on behalf of the Complainant.

The Complainant gave evidence under oath.

Much of the Complainant’s evidence related to a dispute she had had with a colleague who she felt criticised her work unfairly and generally picked on her. These matters came to a head on the 5th of November. The Complainant had cleaned a room and this colleague had called her back to remedy an issue that was caused by a different housekeeper. The Complainant tried to raise this but was given out to by her colleague. She became upset and sought out a member of management.

The Complainant came across Mr Noel Tynan in the dining room overseeing electrical works. She tried to raise what had happened but was given out to and told that if she couldn’t do as instructed she should “sling her hook.” The Complainant took this to be her dismissal and left.

The Respondent later tried to get in touch to offer the Complainant her job back but the Complainant was unhappy with how she had been treated and felt that she could not go back.

The Complainant never received her final week’s salary.

Mr Wall submitted detailed written and oral submissions on behalf of the Respondent. The  Respondent denies dismissing the Complainant and actively sought to have her return to work. They paid her as normal in November 2020 and when it became clear she would not return they paid her annual leave on 4th of February 2022.  The Respondent provided an unsigned copy of the Complainant’s contract which she had been issued with. 

Mr Noel Tynan gave evidence under oath.

He he is a partner in the respondent business but he was not the partner who oversaw the day-to-day running of the guest house where the Complainant worked.

On the day in question he remembers hearing the Complainant speaking in a raised voice. He went to speak to her and as she was extremely upset he told her to go home and cool down.

This interaction happened in an area where there were guests nearby. As such Mr Tynan thought it was appropriate to tell the Complainant to leave for the day. He is clear that he never told her to” sling her hook”. Aside from the fact that it would not be his role to fire someone working in the guest house this was not a phrase he had ever used in his life.

The Respondent in their subsequent submission provided to the WRC bank details from payroll showing the transfer of salary to the complainant.

CA-00052040-001 – Unfair Dismissals Act

In circumstances where a dismissal is in dispute the burden of proof is on the Complainant to establish that dismissal occurred. Both the Complainant and Mr Tynan gave evidence of their interaction on 5th November 2020.

The Complainant says she sought to raise a legitimate grievance and was sacked on the spot for doing so. Mr Tynan says he sent the Complainant home after she became upset and that he never dismissed her nor would was it his role to.

On the basis of the evidence in front of me the Complainant has not established that she was dismissed. In particular I note two things that make me prefer Mr Tynan’s evidence over hers.

The first is that though Mr Tynan was a director of the business he was not the director who oversaw the guest house Mr Moloney. The Complainant and Mr Tynan did not regularly interact and he does not appear to have been aware of her ongoing issues with her colleague which caused such upset on the day. As such it would be unusual for someone in Mr Tynan’s role to dismiss someone in the Complainant’s role.

The second concerns another issue entirely which impacts on the Complainant’s evidence overall.  The Complainant was clear in evidence that she did not receive her final pay. After the hearing the Respondent provided excerpts from their payroll run showing the Complainant’s final salary and what the Respondent say are her bank details. This was sent to the Complainant’s solicitor and there was no response.

I do not find that the Complainant was dismissed.

CA-00052040-002 - Terms of Employment (Information) Act

The Complainant did not appear to pursue her claim under the Terms of Employment Information Act in the hearing. The Respondent submitted a copy of her contract. 

CA-00052040-003 – Payment of Wages Act.

The Respondent submitted a supplemental submission showing excerpts from their payroll SEPA file dated 12th of November 2021.

CA-00052040-004 – Organisation of Working Time Act.

The Respondent has provided the payslip from when they paid the Complainant her outstanding leave.

I find that the above complaints, CA-00052040-001, CA-00052040-002, CA-00052040-003, CA-00052040-004 are not well founded.