ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003136
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Beauty Therapist | A Beauty Salon |
Representatives | Self | Owner |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00003136 | 12/09/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 27/02/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 28/08/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 17/09/2024 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker attended the hearing, and xx represented herself and was accompanied by a parent. The Employer was represented by the owner and one other representative from the Employer.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to this dispute. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
Background:
The Worker was employed by the Employer as a Beauty Therapist from 10/06/2024 until 18/07/2024. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker has submitted that she would like the way she is treated to be investigated. She was not provided with a unform, had to provide her own protective clothing and supplies. She contacted COVID-19 while working there due the fact that she had to work closely with clients. Her requests for a uniform were ignored during her time working for the employer. The worker also submits that the attitude and manner of her manager was “shocking”. The worker also believes that she was subjected to bullying treatment while an employee. She had booked a holiday prior to her commencement and while on holidays the owner left a voice message which she described as “an awful message”. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer took over the business when another business went into liquidation. The employer employed the worker from 10/06/2024. The employer has no responsibility for anything prior to that date. The employer submits that as she just took over the business there was a delay in getting some things up and running. She was trying to set up the business and run it well. There was a difficulty in obtaining uniforms from the supplier as she needed to obtain staff sizes and get quotes from different suppliers. The Employer did provide protective gloves and masks and she had a supplier for those. The employer cannot be held responsible if a worker contacted COVID-19 as this could have been contacted from any number of places. The employer believes that there was uncertainty about the worker taking holidays as she initially received vague dates. When the worker did take holidays they were not requested and were taken at one of the busiest times in the salon. The employer takes issue with the number and manner of texts received from the worker after her dismissal. These were threatening and alluded to making disparaging comments about the business. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute such as this one is to formulate a recommendation that will assist both parties to move forward.
There is no doubt that the relationship between the former worker and the employer is strained. This is clear from the written materials provided and the interaction at the remote hearing. As the Worker is no longer employed there is no merit in making a recommendation in relation to the working relationship. However, I am recommending that the worker is paid the sum of €200.00 as reimbursement for having to provide a uniform and/or any other materials during her period employment. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am recommending that the worker is paid the sum of €200.00 as reimbursement for having to provide a uniform and any other materials during her period employment.
Dated: 13-03-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
|