Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Hairdresser

A Hairdressing Salon

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Johanne Duignan of Ledwith Solicitors LLP

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 - 00001872

12/10/2023

The Worker in this case was employed as a trainee stylist.

The Employer is run by a married couple Mrs X and Mr Y.

The employment relationship ended on the 15th of April 2023. On the 24th of April 2023 the Worker submitted a complaint under the Industrial Relations Act, IR - SC – 00001409, which was heard on the 10th of October 2023. This complaint concerned allegations of bullying and was not upheld by that Adjudication Officer. Two days after that hearing the Worker submitted this case which referred to the same facts as alleged in IR - SC – 00001409 but included dismissal as well.

Having regard to the previous recommendation I have limited the scope of this trade dispute investigation to just the question of dismissal.  

The Worker was dismissed summarily by way of text message on the 15th of April 2023.

The text was sent by Mrs X. one of the owners of the Salon and stated:  Please do not come back to the salon; I am his wife and it is also my decision who works here. He is still my husband and my salon. Then, you can do whatever you want.

The Worker points to the recommendations of the Labour Court in C&W O'Brien Architects - v - A worker, LCR22391 and Brampton Care Ltd. - v - A worker, LCR22255. Both cases stress the requirement of employers to adhere to fair procedures and SI 146 of 2000 when considering termination.

The Employer disputes that the Worker was dismissed.

They argue that there was a general breakdown in the employment relationship after the Worker persistently undermined Ms X at work. She considered Mr Y as the only legitimate management figure in the company. On a number of occasions, she deliberately ruined hair colouring that was being carried out on clients.

Mrs X would try to engage with her but she refused to speak with her and would not attend work. She did attend work on the 15th of April but again ruined Mrs X’s colouring and walked out when Mrs X confronted her about it.

Due to the Worker’s refusal to engage with her, and her decision to unilaterally stay at home, Mrs X texted the Worker: Please do not come back to the salon; I am his wife and it is also my decision who works here. He is still my husband and my salon. Then, you can do whatever you want.

The Worker replied: OK. Are you still at the salon? I want to come and write my resignation letter. Mrs X then stated: Great. I’m here.

Approximately, 30 minutes after having sent the above text message to Mrs X, the Worker arrived into the salon, along with her brother and sister-in-law. All three of them entered the salon and proceeded to the private staff room.

The Worker, her brother and his girlfriend spoke mainly in Moldovan, which Mrs X did not understand. The brother was verbally abusive and attempted to grab Mrs X and was restrained by the Worker and the brother’s girlfriend. Mr Y then asked them to leave.

The Worker then absented herself from work and did not communicate with the Respondents until the 16th of May 2023 when she texted Mrs X to ask to meet for a coffee. Mrs X suggested meeting in the salon, as she was in fear of the Worker and her brother, but the Worker refused to meet her at the salon.

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

It seems clear to me that a termination of the Worker’s employment did occur. Mrs X’s text appears to be on the face of it a dismissal. No fair process or disciplinary procedure was carried out before this decision was reached.

It is also clear that the employment relationship had functionally broken down at that point and that the Worker had contributed to that breakdown and that there appears to have been legitimate grounds by which the Employer could terminate the Worker, had fair procedures been followed.

In the circumstances I am on the view that the dismissal was unfair and recommend compensation.

The Worker was out of work for 6 weeks and started work on a slightly lower rate of pay for the first few weeks. She has a total loss of approximately €4000 arising from the dismissal.

Taking into account the Worker’s role in her own dismissal I am of the view that compensation should be limited to €1200.