Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Barber

A Hairdressing Salon

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Thomas Ryan

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000834

10/11/2022

The complainant give evidence that he was dismissed without any prior notice and that even though the respondent has a company handbook the procedure there for termination was not followed.

He accepts that some of the sexist comments he is alleged to have made were in fact made but said that these were not intended to be taken seriously and were made in jest.

The respondent operates a hair and beauty business.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent, on March 7th, 2022. At that time the owner of the company was on a prolonged visit to her family in the US.  Furthermore, the manager of the premises was on sick leave.

The acting manager interviewed the complainant and set out his duties and conditions.  At the commencement of his employment the complainant indicated that he would need certain Sundays off. 

The respondent accommodated this and in fact he only worked one Sunday, August 17th,  2022. The complainant was also facilitated with finishing early certain days. 

In respect of the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment there were a number of serious issues with him regarding breaks and punctuality.

The complainant became very difficult and was uncooperative and for example would not sweep up in the salon, saying that this was ‘a woman’s job’.  He also was heard to utter anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT comments.

He played music that was excessively loud and while evidence was given that he was an excellent barber his attitude changed, and he would absent himself regularly without authorisation.

He was given informal warnings but none of these had any effect. In due course his employment was terminated.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions and evidence presented to me by the parties.

The claim of unfair dismissal is made under the Industrial Relations Acts as the complainant did not have a full year’s service nor did he meet any of the exemptions to have his case considered under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

It is not in dispute that the complainant had his employment terminated without any form of procedure.

The respondent did warn him on a number of occasions about his conduct and performance but while I do not disregard these they were not formally recorded.

Even within the first year of a contract of employment some element of formal engagement with an employee is necessary when terminating the employment as a matter of both courtesy and fair procedure.

It is clear that the respondent was very frustrated by the complainant’s conduct, and he confirmed at the hearing that he had made sexist comments and other allegations were made about him making anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT comments.

These are very serious allegations, but their gravity does not relieve the respondent of the obligation to put them to the complainant, hear his response in the course of a fair process and then decide on an appropriate sanction if any is merited.

In this case the respondent did not do these things and therefore I have no hesitation in finding that the dismissal was unfair.

However, in reaching my conclusion I take into account the fact that the complainant had very limited losses, he secured new employment within a matter of weeks, and I further take into account the very substantial contribution he made to the situation.

Dismissal, fair procedure