Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karen  Daly

Anita’s Hair & Beauty Limited t/a Elysian Hair & Skincare

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Dermot O'Loughlin

 No Appearance

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-00062992-001

23/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00062992-002

23/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00062992-003

23/04/2024

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

CA-00062992-004

23/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00062992-005

23/04/2024

The Complainant attended at the hearing with representation. Submissions and documentary evidence were presented in advance of the hearing.

There was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

CA-00062992-001 - Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The complaint was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing. 

CA-00062992-002 - Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

On 11 January 2024, the Complainant queried the removal of stock and machinery from the salon.She was told not to worry by Respondent.  

The Complainant went on sick leave but 15 upon her return to work on 21 February 2024, the salon was closed, and doors were locked, and salon was empty. A text messages was presented in evidence from the Respondent advising the business was closed.

On 21 February 20224, the Complainant emailed an RP50 Form to the Respondent to which Ms Anita Reilly of the Respondent replied, “bring it on”.

A further email was sent on 24 March 2024, seeking sick leave pay and attaching the RP50 Form again. The Respondent was requested to be completed.

On 30 March 2024, the Complainant sent the RP50 to Respondent’s Accountant who acknowledged receipt and advised the form would be sent to the Respondent. A second email was sent from the Accountant advising to contact the Respondent directly.

No further communication was received from the Respondent.

Upon inquiry the Complainant, was not offered alternative employment in the Respondent’s other salon despite indications it remains open.

CA-00062992-003 - section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she was due €640, i.e. her last week’s wages for the week of 28 February 2024.

In addition, she ought payment of her outstanding annual leave of €385 gross for December 2023. It was submitted it was the normal practice to carry over holidays from mid-November to December due to business reasons.

The Complainant submitted  medical certificate for 9 and 10 February 2024 to both the Respondent and the Accountant but she did not received payment for either day.

CA-00062992-004 - section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she did not receive a contract of employment. It was her evidence that she did request a contract when she commenced employment and upon her promotion.

CA-00062992-005 - Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The complaint was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing. 

After waiting a reasonable period of time there was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent.

No Appearance by or on behalf of Respondent.

Where there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent and a notification letter had been returned to the Workplace Relations Commission from the address provided, further clarification was sought from the Complainant as to the registered business address of the Respondent. Additional time , during the hearing, was given to the Complainant to confirm the correct address and not the address of the salon. The Complainant presented evidence from the CRO which confirmed the address is the same on the hearing notification letter. Consequently, I am satisfied that the Respondent was sent notice to the correct registered business address.

CA-00062992-001 - Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The complaint was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing. 

CA-00062992-002 - Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

I allow the Complainant’s appeal pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 – 2012 based on the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing.

CA-00062992-003 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

I accept the undisputed evidence of the Complainant and find the complaint is well founded in terms of the annual leave payment, two days sick leave and final weeks wages. Where the minimum notice is covered under the Redundancy Payments Acts, I find this to be a duplicate complaint and do not find it well founded.

CA-00062992-004 - section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

I accept the undisputed evidence of the Complainant and find the complaint is well founded.

CA-00062992-005 - Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The complaint was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing. 

CA-00062992-001 - Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00062992-002 - Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

I allow the Complainant’s appeal pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 – 2012 based on the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing.

I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967- 2014 calculated on the basis of the following information.

The Complainant commenced employment on 6 December 2018.

The Complainant’s received notice on 21 February 2024.

The Complainant’s employment terminated on 20 March 2024 (taking into account her statutory notice period)

The Complainant was paid €640 per week gross based on a 40-hour week. This was confirmed in evidence.

CA-00062992-003 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Redress is provided for under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 :-

“6. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or 5 as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tip or gratuity as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

I accept the undisputed evidence of the Complainant. I find she is entitled to compensation in the sum of €640 gross in accordance with Section 1 (b) (i) the definition of wages.

I further find she is entitled to compensation for her two days certified sick leave in the sum of €640 being in accordance with Section 6 (1) (a) (i) and the definition of wages in Section 1 (b) (i).

Finally, I find the Complainant is entitled to compensation for outstanding annual leave in the sum of €640 being in accordance with Section 6 (1) (a) (i) and the definition of wages in Section 1 (b) (i).  

CA-00062992-004 - section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

I find the complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €2,560 which equals four weeks wages where she sought on several occasions for a copy of her contract  of employment from the Respondent.  

CA-00062992-005 - Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The complaint was withdrawn. 

No Appearance – Redundancy – Payment of Wages Act