Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ciara  Elliott

Laura Branagan Bdazzling Hair And Beauty

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022

CA-00071144-001

29/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00071144-002

29/04/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 January 2014 as a Senior Hair Stylist.  She worked 24 hours per week and was paid €330 gross per week. The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent ended on 1 May 2025.

The Complainant submits that she was penalised for exercising her rights under the Sick Leave Act, 2022.

In her complaint form, the Complainant submits that on 21 April 2025, she informed the Respondent that she would not be able attend work due to a shoulder/neck injury.  In response to her communication, the Complainant received a text message form her employer’s husband which was a photograph of a form [a completed RP 9 Form], she was informed she had been temporarily laid off. She was shocked to receive this news particularly in the manner in which it was communicated to her. When the Complainant enquired as to the reason for the layoff, she was informed that the salon was closed due to staff shortages. 

The Complainant submits that she feels she is being penalised for being certified unfit for work because the salon is understaffed, an issue that she believes could have been resolved if the correct measures had been taken by the owner.

The Complainant gave evidence on Oath at the hearing.

The Complainant stated that on 21 April 2025, she tried to contact the Respondent to tell her that she had injured her shoulder/neck, but she was blocked from the Respondent’s phone, so she contacted the Respondent’s husband. In response she received an image of a completed RP9 Form, informing her that she had been laid off.  The Complainant stated that she felt she had been penalised for looking for a sick leave day.

In closing, the Complainant stated that it was a pity things had come to this.  She was punished for being sick.  Staffing levels are the employer’s responsibility.  The matter had caused her great stress and strain.

In a written submission the Respondent put forward that she laid off both the staff working in the salon on 21 April 2025. Subsequently, she had to close the business after 23 years because of the difficulties she was experiencing.  Following the closure of the business she moved to a much smaller premises and opened a new beautician business.

The Respondent gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing.

The Respondent stated that she had discussed the difficulties the business was encountering with the Complainant in late 2024.  On 2 April 2025, she met a consultant about the ongoing financial pressures in the business.  On 2 April 2025, her manager resigned, the same week a junior stylist walked out.  Another stylist was on long-term sick leave. The Complainant had been on annual leave, after she came back, she took another 10 days unpaid leave.  The Respondent had been left on her own running the salon for four weeks. The Respondent stated that when the Complainant returned from her unpaid leave, she immediately went sick.

The Respondent stated that on 19 April 2025, she had decided to lay the staff off due to the ongoing business problems. She had wanted to tell the Complainant face to face but as the Complainant was absent, this was not possible. Later a decision was made to close the business completely.

The Respondent stated that she did everything she could to resolve matters professionally.  She offered to meet the Complainant in May to explain the reason for the redundancies, but the Complainant declined her invitation.

The Respondent stated that on 1 July 2025, the Complainant was paid a redundancy payment and other payments that were due to her.

In closing, the Respondent stated that the business was unsustainable after 21 years and this was a closure not a dismissal. She stated that she had acted in good faith at every stage.

Section 12 of the 2022 Act states:

Protection of employees from penalisation

12. (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for proposing to exercise or having exercised his or her entitlement to statutory sick leave.

(2) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of the penalisation both under this Act and under those Acts.

(3) In this section, “penalisation” means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

The Labour Court in Toni & Guy Blackrock v Paul O’Neill [2010] 21 ELR 1 set out the test for penalisation:-

“It is clear from the language of this section that in order to make out a complaint of penalisation it is necessary for a claimant to establish that the detriment of which he or she complains was imposed “for” having committed one of the acts protected by subsection 3. Thus the detriment giving rise to the complaint must have been incurred because of, or in retaliation for, the Claimant having committed a protected act. This suggested that where there is more than one causal factor in the chain of events leading to the detriment complained of the commission of a protected act must be an operative cause in the sense that “but for” the Claimant having committed the protected act he or she would not have suffered the detriment. This involves a consideration of the motive or reasons which influenced the decision maker in imposing the impugned detriment.”

I note the Complainant’s complaint form was received by the WRC on 29 April 2025, this is prior to the date the Complainant was made redundant.  Therefore, the penalisation alleged in this instant case refers solely to the Complainant being laid off by the Respondent.

From the evidence adduced I find that the timing of the lay off and the Complainant’s absence through injury are coincidental; the Complainant was not laid off for taking sick leave rather her sick leave came just after the Respondent had made the decision to lay the Complainant off and close her business on what at the time she believed would be a temporary basis.  (I accept the Respondent’s evidence that this decision was made on 19 April 2025).

Notwithstanding the above, I believe the matter could have been handled better by the Respondent; the Complainant deserved an explanation, given in person, rather than being sent a photograph of a completed RP 9 Form.

The complaint is not well founded.

Penalisation, coincidence