Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Magdalena  Mojzesz

Longhair Studio And Accademy Limited

Representatives

Valerie Morrison Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00054499-001

16/01/2023

The complainant went for interview in October 2021. In that interview she told the Respondent that she would need to have surgery and that was scheduled for May 2022. It was agreed that she would take one week paid and one week unpaid. She did that. She worked daily 10am – 5pm. After some time, her hours were extended. She couldn’t work late as she had to collect her son from the creche. Ms. Rakoczy was not happy with that.

There were lots of days when she did work but she wasn’t paid. She also wasn’t paid for bank holidays. She did have to take days off when her son was ill. She had no option. Her kids come first.

15.11.2022 – 23.11.2022 – her son was ill with covid so she couldn’t come in.

28.12.2022 – 30.12.2022 – She was on holidays.

In total the Complainant only took off eight days. It isn’t as bad as the Respondent has made out.

During the course of her employment, the Respondent did talk to her about her attitude and attendance however she didn’t agree with a lot of what she said. She was nice to the clients, and she wasn’t late and didn’t take much time off. The Complainant denies that the Respondent ever gave her warnings verbal or otherwise, other than the first week of her employment. During cross examination she eventually admitted that she was spoken to about a customer complaint that had been received.

On the 28th after the text exchange the Respondent asked the Complainant to leave back the keys. She left the keys back on the 29th. Ms. Rakoczy was not there.  She gathered up her belongings and she left. They never spoke again.

She got employment with another company at the end of February / beginning of March 2023. She is earning more money now that with the Respondent.

Ms Rakoczy is the owner, and she works in the business. It is a hair extension studio. She has two studios, one in Limerick and one in Ennis. The Complainant was in the Limerick Salon. The Complainant started in the business as an assistant. She was being trained during that time. After a few months she was promoted to doing the hair extensions herself. The Complainant and the Respondent entered into a training agreement. The reason they have a trading agreement is to make sure that staff don’t leave after their training and set up in competition. €1,550.00 is the cost of the training. If someone leaves after the training, money is recouped. It is done on a percentage basis based on the length of the time they stay after the training. The Complainant left during the course of the training agreement. She agreed to repay the money pursuant to the agreement. Money was deducted from the Complainant’s last payslip, but she does still owes over €800.00.

The Complainant submitted a number of booking sheets in her evidence. The bookings were printed in the evening after the salon was closed. It was the 28th December. She wasn’t at work that day. That lead the Respondent to conclude that she was planning on taking this claim. She did return the keys the following day. Ms Rakoczy asked her to do that as the salon was about to be renovated and she needed the keys for the builders.

At the commencement of the Complainant’s employment her attitude towards the clients wasn’t great. Ms. Rakoczy received a few complaints about the Complainant both in relation to her attitude and later in relation to the quality of her hair extensions. She was given a copy of one of the complaints received from a client. Furthermore, there was also issues in relation to her attendance. Ms. Rakoczy understands the issues of working when you have kids. However, she was always absent and /or leaving early or arriving late. Appointments had to be rescheduled regularly, every two weeks or so. The first time she was spoken to about her attitude towards her clients was in the first week of her employment. She was spoken to again several times after that. The Respondent accepts that she should have given her a written warning/s but she did not do that. She just verbally warned her.

On the 28th December Ms Rakoczy received a message from the Complainant stating that her son was ill. She said she could work a few hours over the next few days. Ms Rakoczy said she couldn’t set her own hours as they had clients booked in.  She sent in a sick certificate but her name was on it not her sons. Ms. Rakoczy asked her if she wanted to continue working there. She said that she was working very hard but was earning less than other employees. Ms. Rakoczy said that she needed to be more consistent and attend for work regularly and on time. The Complainant said she had a sick child so what did the Respondent want her to do. She said “you can fire me if you like” The Respondent said that it was a business not a holiday resort and she had to turn up on time and when expected. They then spoke about the training agreement and the repayment of the training fees.  The Complainant didn’t turn up for work on the 29th December.  She was relying on the certificate she had sent in. Prior to that she said that she could work up until the 2pm on the 29th and 30th. The Respondent was surprised she hadn’t turned up as she hadn’t been fired. However, the fact that she came to the salon at 10pm, opened the system and took photos of the booking system was a complete breach of trust. However, Ms Rakoczy didn’t realise she had done that until the documents were submitted to the WRC. If she had known that at the time it would have been a deal breaker. In any event, when Ms. Rakoczy saw the certificate in her name and not her sons she made the decision in her head to terminate her employment. The salon was closed the first week of January. She never came back to the salon after that. She was given her notice at that stage anyway.

The Respondent has a policy document in relation to ethics.  Unethical behaviour is set out in that document. Telling lies to your Employer is unethical and breaks the trust between employer and employee.

It is clear from the evidence of Ms. Rakoczy that there were issues with the Complainant from the first week of her employment. The Respondent stated that her attendance was very poor, her time keeping was poor and her attitude was bad. Every time her son was sick, she had to take time off. She said that she had no choice because she is alone with her son and has nobody to help her. That situation is understandable, but it isn’t really acceptable from an employer’s perspective.  In total she took seventeen days leave in addition to her annual leave. I also note that customer complaints were received in relation to her attitude and the quality of her work. Again, it took several attempts under cross examination to get the Complainant to admit that she had received a copy of that complaint.

I accept the Respondent’s evidence that she was given numerous warnings in relation to the issues. The Complainant’s evidence in that regard was guarded and it took several attempts to get her to accept that she had received warnings.

On 28th December the Complainant again did not attend for work due to the fact that her son was ill. Unusually her name was on the certificate when it was her child who was ill. In any event she did not turn up for work and stated that she could only work until lunchtime on the 29th and the 30th. Communications went back and forth between the Complainant and Ms Rakoczy via text message. They ended up in the Complainant assuming that her employment had been terminated. She didn’t attend for work on the 29th or the 30th so the Respondent also concluded that she wasn’t coming back. The factual situation surrounding the dismissal is not clear but in any event by the 30th all parties deemed the dismissal to have occurred and that was confirmed in writing on the 4th January.

I note that the Complainant was not given an opportunity to appeal the decision to dismiss her. In that regard there are failings in the Respondent’s process. However, I find that the Complainant did contribute to her own dismissal. I also note that the Complainant secured work approximately eight weeks later and is earning more now that she did with the Respondent.

Based on the failings in the Respondent’s process only, I find that the complaint succeeds. In all of the circumstances, I find that the appropriate level of compensation is € 500.00.

The complaint succeeds. I award the Complainant €500.00 compensation.

Unfair Dismissal, Verbal Warnings, Absenteeism.