Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Hairdresser

Hairdressing Salon

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Eoin O’Connor BL instructed by Powderly Solicitors

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 - 00001409

24/05/2023

The Worker was employed as a trainee junior stylist in the Employer’s hair salon.  The business was established by Mr X and his wife Mrs X, who both work as stylists in the business.  The Worker worked 40 hours per week and was paid €15 per hour. 

The Worker submits that she was treated in the most demeaning way at work being bullied and humiliated in front of her colleagues.  She was called “a whore" in front of her colleagues because the manager's wife was convinced that the Worker was in love with her boss.  Eventually, the Worker was kicked out of the salon.

Due to the actions of the Employer, the Worker had to undergo therapy.  She was so afraid of what the manager's wife was capable of doing that even on the complaint form she avoided putting down her actual home address. To this date, the Worker is afraid to travel through the town where her former workplace is located, and she asks her brother to meet her if she needs to go into the town.

The Worker submits that the Employer acted contrary to the provisions of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Acts and other relevant legislation.  The Employer, through its actions, failed to provide a safe working environment for the Worker, failed to protect her dignity and ended up affecting her mental health resulting in the Worker having to attend a therapist.

The Worker further submits that she was unable to raise the matter locally as she had not been provided with a Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure.

The Worker submits that, in calculating the appropriate level of compensation, the circumstances of the entire case should be looked at. The Worker refers to Malecka & Krawczyk -v- Family Bakery Samo Zdrowie, DWT1584 / DWT1585 where the Labour Court concluded that "the Court has taken account of the extent to which the Act was contravened and the particularly serious nature of those contraventions". The Court also relied on the judgement in Edward James Feeney - v - Milagros Baquiran120041 15 E.L.R. 304 where it said that "the provisions of the Act, and of the Directive on which It is based, are health and safety imperatives.”

The Worker also relies on Peter Lukco -v- HSE South & Kerry General Hospital, DWT 1560 and Ana Lacramioara Manciu -v Stablefield Ltd DWT 1924 with regard to the appropriate level of compensation.

The Employer denies that the Worker was bullied or harassed. The Worker has not provided any particulars of this allegation.

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

The Worker’s complaints against the Employer are very general in nature.  No specific details of the incidents which gave rise to this complaint have been provided.  Accordingly, I am not in a position to recommend favour of the Worker.

I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Insufficient detail