Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Beautician

A Skincare Salon

Representatives

 Self-represented

Did not attend the hearing and was not represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00068158

23/07/2024

The worker commenced work with this employer on March 25th 2024.  She was employed as a beautician / receptionist in a skincare salon in Dublin.  Payslips she produced at the hearing show that she was paid €15.50 per hour.  At the hearing, the worker said that she was not registered with the Revenue Commissioners until April 18th 2024 and she was paid in cash for the first two weeks of her employment.  On the form she submitted to the WRC, she said that for three of the 11 weeks that she worked with this employer, her wages were late being transferred to her bank account and she got paid on Monday instead of the previous Friday.  She said that his caused her stress and anxiety and she then sent messages to the manager on Thursday or Friday of most weeks to check if her wages had been transferred to her bank.

The worker was dismissed on June 11th 2024, a day on which she was absent on holidays.  In a text message on that day, a manager wrote to her and said, “I think we have to finish the working relationship in case more arguments in future (sic).”  This was confirmed in an email from an administrator later that day, who wrote:

“I am here to inform that your Employment Contract will be terminated by today on 11 June 2023 in probation period.  We will pay you extra 3 days wage plus holiday pay in this week’s payslip (sic).”

The worker said that she was due back at work on June 12th, but when she checked the roster for that week, she wasn’t scheduled for any work.  When she made enquiries with the management, the worker said that she got a text message from the owner in which he said that he was struggling with her complaints about payments and that he had to finish the working relationship in case there were more arguments in the future.

The worker’s case is that her dismissal was unfair and that her employer did not follow any procedures and that she was not given a warning or an opportunity to resolve the problem that was causing her to have to contact her employer about her wages.

The information provided by the worker at the hearing of this dispute is that she was dismissed when she checked to ensure that her employer had transferred her wages to her bank account so that she would be paid before the weekend, and not on Mondays.  It seems that her employer became annoyed at being constantly asked by the worker to check that her wages were transferred.

By any reasonable standard, this conduct is not a sufficient cause of dismissal.  Most employers in the same circumstances would have addressed the issue that was causing the worker to feel anxious and would have made an effort to eliminate the problem instead of the employee.

From this information, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that dismissal of the worker was not fair and that this lack of fairness was exacerbated by the fact that no procedures were followed, and she got no warnings and no notice.

I accept that, in general, a dispute being considered under the Industrial Relations Act is a less formal matter than a hearing under the Unfair Dismissals Act; however, I am guided by the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Limited, trading as the Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker, LCR 21798.  It is clear from this decision that the requirement for fair procedures is not confined to employees who have adequate service to benefit from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, and the Labour Court has consistently determined that employees with short service come within the protection of Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Before she was dismissed, the worker should have been informed what it was that was causing issues for her manager to the point where a decision was made not give her any more work.  As she had short service, it would not have been appropriate to go through each stage of a disciplinary process; however, she should have been given an opportunity to address the issues that were causing concern.  All that was required was a conversation between the manager and the worker and an effort by the employer to ensure that wages were transferred on time, to ensure that she remained in her job in the longer term.  I find the dismissal of the worker was unfair, arising as it did from unreasonable conduct on the part of the employer regarding the payment of wages.  I find also that it was entirely unfair of the employer not to try to deal with the issue that was causing the conflict with the worker. 

At the hearing of this dispute, the worker said that she hasn’t looked for another job because she found out soon after she was dismissed on June 11th 2024, that she is expecting a baby in March 2025.  Having considered all the information submitted to me by the worker, I recommend that the employer pay her compensation of €620.00, equivalent to one week’s pay.

Unreasonable cause of dismissal, failure to follow procedures