Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Laura Fagan

B’Dazzling Hair, Beauty & Nails

Representatives

N/A

N/A

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071378-001

07/05/2025

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

CA-00071378-002

07/05/2025

The Complainant worked as a Senior Hair Stylist for the Respondent. She was employed by the Respondent from 8 December 2017 until 7 May 2025. The Complainant’s most recent rate of pay was €330 per week, for a 24-hour working week. The Complainant submits that the Respondent acted in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Sick Leave Act 2022. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has been paid in full and that the complaints are without merit.

The Complainant provided written and oral submissions.

The Complainant outlined that she started as a Hair Stylist with the Respondent in 2017. By March 2025, there was one other Senior Hair Stylist, a Junior Stylist and two beauticians (including Ms. Branagan) working in the salon. The Complainant stated that the Junior Stylist and one beautician left in April 2025, while she and the other Senior Hair Stylist were subsequently made redundant.

The Complainant stated she was on jury service from 24 February until 4 March 2025. She went on sick leave on 21 March 2025 and she did not return to work. She sent her GP sick certificates to the Respondent and received no response. She said that she then messaged Ms. Laura Branagan’s husband, Mr. Ron Branagan, as Ms. Branagan had “blocked” her. The Complainant stated that she has been in receipt of illness benefit since March 2025.

The Complainant stated that she was temporarily laid off by the Respondent on 21 April 2025. She stated that she was informed that the company was closing on 6 May 2025. She attended a meeting on 13 May 2025, which was also attended by: the other Senior Hair Stylist; Ms. Branagan; and an employment consultant. There was a discussion regarding the closing of the business and the redundancy package. The Complainant stated that she was told to correspond with the employment consultant directly.

The Complainant stated that she received her sick pay in April 2025 and that she received her bank holiday pay on 26 May 2025. The Complainant stated that she also received over €6,000 in redundancy pay on 1 July 2025. She stated that the other Senior Hair Stylist was also made redundant.

The Complainant stated that she was penalised as she was placed on temporary lay-off while on sick leave and that it caused her a lot of stress. She stated that she also wants clarity regarding the redundancy situation as the Respondent opened a new salon, two doors down from its former premises.

Cross-Examination:

The Complainant initially stated that the Respondent was advertising her job in the new salon. The Complainant later accepted that the Respondent was not advertising her job in the new salon.

The Complainant stated that she was penalised as she had been laid off and subsequently made redundant, while on sick leave. She said that she was willing to return to work. The Complainant also stated that she had not conveyed, at any point, to the Respondent that she was willing to return to work. She said that she was suffering from stress and that she took more time off work.

The Respondent provided written and oral submissions.

Witness Evidence – Ms. Laura Branagan:

Ms. Branagan outlined that she owned and operated the salon since October 2002. She stated that the business was under pressure and that in September 2024, she asked the employees whether they would like to rent a chair in the salon, however, they declined.

Ms. Branagan stated that prior to Covid, the Respondent employed 12 members of staff. However, she said that they have struggled since then and that by March 2025 the Respondent employed: two Senior Hair Stylists; a Manager (who was also a beautician); a Junior Stylist; and herself, a beautician.

Ms. Branagan stated that the Complainant went on sick leave on 21 March 2025. Ms. Branagan stated that she had a meeting with an employment consultant on 2 April 2025. She stated that, in mid-April 2025, the Manager handed in her notice, the Junior Stylist resigned and the other Senior Hair Stylist was on her honeymoon. She stated that, due to the staffing crisis, she decided to lay off the remaining members of staff, the two Senior Hair Stylists. She stated that they have been fully paid. She stated that she is not advertising for any vacant positions.

Ms. Branagan stated that the original salon had 10 chairs and 10 treatment rooms. She said that her new salon has only one chair and one treatment room. She said that she planned on doing a hair extension course and that was why she kept the word “hair” in the Respondent’s name. However, she stated that she is the only person working in the new salon and that she only carries out beauty and nail treatments.

Ms. Branagan stated that the Complainant declined to attend the meeting on 21 May 2025 and so another meeting was scheduled for 17 June 2025. She stated that everything that was owed to the Complainant has been paid. She said that the Complainant was paid for her statutory sick leave. She said that there were emails between the Complainant and Mr. Branagan regarding bank holiday pay. She also stated that the Complainant was facilitated in attending jury service.

Ms. Branagan stated that she was struggling with matters herself in April 2025 and that was why her husband dealt with correspondence.

Cross-Examination:

Ms. Branagan confirmed that all payments had been made to the Complainant.

Witness Evidence – Mr. Ron Branagan:

Mr. Branagan stated that he is the co-owner of the business and that Ms. Branagan runs the business. He stated that Ms. Branagan was working “more than ever” and that he helped her out. He confirmed that he corresponded with the Complainant via “WhatsApp” and via emails, regarding her sick pay, bank holiday pay and lay-off. He provided details of correspondence with the Complainant in April and May 2025.

Mr. Branagan stated that the salon was operating on too large a scale and that it was not sustainable. He stated that he and Mrs. Branagan “struggled” to keep it open. He stated that the main reason for its closure was that there was no staff and therefore the business could not operate. He said that it was financially impossible to keep the salon open.

Cross-Examination:

Mr. Branagan provided details of his communications with the Complainant.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 - CA-00071378-001– Did not receive public holiday entitlements:

The Law:

Full-time employees have immediate entitlement to benefit for public holidays. Pursuant to section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, an employee is entitled to:

“(a) a paid day off on that day,

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

(c) an additional day of annual leave,

(d) an additional day’s pay:

Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom.”

Findings and Conclusion:

It was common case that the Complainant received the public holiday pay owing to her. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 - CA-00071378-002 – Penalised for having exercised rights under the Sick Leave Act 2022:

The Law:

Section 12 of the Sick Leave Act 2022 provides:

“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.”

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant submits that she was penalised for having exercised her rights under the Sick Leave Act 2022. The Complainant went on sick leave on 21 March 2025 and did not return to work. The Complainant confirmed that she received pay for her statutory sick leave from the Respondent, in April 2025.

The Respondent provided details on affirmation of the difficulties faced by the business. These difficulties were apparent in September 2024, when Ms. Branagan asked the employees whether they would like to rent a chair in the salon, however, they declined. Ms. Branagan and Mr. Branagan gave evidence concerning staffing issues between March and April 2025; the difficulties with keeping the salon open in the circumstances; and the resulting decision to close the salon. The Respondent hired an employment consultant, who assisted in the redundancy process concerning the two remaining members of staff, including the Complainant. Both members of staff received their full redundancy payments.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent penalised her for having exercised her rights under the Sick Leave Act 2022. Therefore, I find that this complaint is not well founded.  

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - CA-00071378-001– Did not receive public holiday entitlements:

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

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Sick Leave Act 2022 - CA-00071378-002 – Penalised for having exercised rights under the Sick Leave Act 2022:

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

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997; Public Holidays; Sick Leave Act 2022; Penalisation.