Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Renata Magazzu

Hair Experts Liffey Street

Representatives

Self-represented 

Represented by the owner

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00059818-001

05/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00059818-002

05/11/2023

Wax in the City is the trading name of Hair Experts Liffey Street and the complainant started working there as a “depiladora” in October 2021.  She earned €11.00 per hour.  A copy of a contract of employment was submitted to the WRC by Ms Cusack, which was signed by the complainant on February 17th 2022.  At the time, the complainant was working on a student visa.  In September 2022, she went to Italy and she returned to Ireland in February 2023.  She was successful in applying for EU citizenship in Italy and she resumed working for Wax in the City on March 1st 2023.

In her evidence at the hearing, the complainant said that when she returned to Dublin, she had a long meeting with Ms Cusack at which she asked for an increase in her hourly rate.  Ms Cusack agreed to pay her €13.50 per hour.  The complainant said that she asked for a new contract of employment, to reflect the fact that she was no longer a student, that she had changed her name and that she was at a different address.  She also referred to her new rate of pay.  She said that she never received a new contract.

The complainant said that she was unhappy with €13.50 per hour and she told Ms Cusack that she was looking for another job.  She said that she was honest about her intentions and she tried to arrange interviews outside of working time, but that this wasn’t always possible because she got her roster only two days in advance.  On October 10th 2023, the complainant took time off from work to attend an interview.  She claims that, at a meeting with Ms Cusack on October 12th, she was dismissed without notice and without following fair procedures.

Concluding her evidence, the complainant said that she started in a new job about a week after she finished working for the respondent.

Ms Cusack sent a short statement to the WRC in advance of the hearing of this complaint.  She said that the complainant was issued with a contract when she started working with the company in October 2021.  Ms Cusack said that the complainant was on a sabbatical between September 2022 and February 2023 and that she returned to work in the salon by mutual agreement.  On her return to work, apart from the increase in her rate of pay, there were no changes to the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment.  Ms Cusack wasn’t aware that the complainant had changed her name.

By October 2023, Ms Cusack knew that the complainant wasn’t happy and that she was looking for another job.  In her evidence at the hearing, she said that she asked her to go for interviews in her own time because her absence was causing disruption.  On October 12th, Ms Cusack said that they had a conversation and she felt that the complainant had moved on and she and they reached a mutual decision that she would finish on that day.  Ms Cusack said that ambiguity of the complainant’s situation was causing difficulties; however, she said that she was not dismissed.

CA-00059818-001:

Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

This complaint has been submitted under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and is concerned with the complainant’s claim that, when she returned to Ireland from Italy in March 2023, she was not issued with a new contract of employment.  The complainant also claims that she was dismissed without notice and in the absence of fair procedures. 

The respondent submitted a copy of the contract which was signed by the complainant on February 17th 2022.  This is a comprehensive document and it contains all the components of a statement of terms and conditions of employment which is required by s.3 of the Act.  Both parties agreed in their evidence that they communicated with each other when the complainant was in Italy between September 2022 and March 2023 and, when she returned to Ireland, the complainant returned to the same job that she had before she left, although at a higher rate of pay.  The complainant argued that, since she was no longer a student, and she had changed her surname from Magazoni to Magazzu and that she had also changed her address, she should have been issued with a new contract of employment. 

It is my view that the document signed by the complainant in February 2022 was adequate to meet the requirements of s.3 of the Act, and that there was no obligation on the respondent to issue a new contract when she returned to work in March 2023.  It is not standard practice for an employer to issue a new contract to an employee who has changed their name or their address and the fact that the complainant was no longer a student and was an EU resident had no bearing on her terms and conditions of employment.  The contract issued in February 2022 contained all the information necessary for the complainant to be fully informed regarding her terms and conditions.  At the hearing, she did not make a case that she had not been provided with information or that any disadvantage was caused to her because she wasn’t issued with a new contract in March 2023.

Having considered this complaint, I am satisfied that there was no obligation on the respondent to issue the complainant with a new contract of employment in March 2023. 

CA-00059818-002:

Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973

The evidence of the complainant is that she was actively looking for a new job and that she made appointments to go for interviews in her own time and, on a couple of occasions, when she was rostered for work.  Ms Cusack said that she accepted that the complainant wanted to move on because she wanted to earn a higher rate of pay.  When they met to discuss the time off for interviews on October 12th, Ms Cusack said that she thought that the decision to finish up was mutual.

Having heard the evidence of both sides, it seems to me that, while the complainant was planning to leave and actively looking for a new job, her unforeseen absences to attend interviews was causing inconvenience for her employer.  It is likely also that she had become more focussed on getting a new job than on doing her best in the job she had.  On October 12th 2023, Ms Cusack took the initiative and had a conversation with the complainant about the impact her conduct was having on her business.  While the complainant was planning to leave, she hadn’t planned to leave on October 12th and I find that she was dismissed without notice on that day.

CA-00059818-001:

Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

For the reasons I have set out above, I decide that this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00059818-002:

Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1994

I decide that this complaint is well founded.  I am satisfied that the complainant commenced employment in the first instance on October 26th 2021.  She took a break from her job from September 2022 until February 2023, with the result that she completed 19 months of service with the respondent.  In accordance with s.4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, she was entitled to one week’s notice.  I therefore direct the respondent to pay her compensation of €500, equivalent to one week’s pay.  As this award is compensation for a breach of a statutory right, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC.

Statement of terms and conditions of employment