Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Atroba  Nadeem

Monika Farkasova T/A Allure Beauty Salon

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Craig Phillips, B.L. instructed by Powderly Solicitors

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-00070282-001

25/03/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.

The fact of dismissal was raised as a preliminary issue, the respondent denied that a dismissal took place.  Accordingly, the complainant provided a summary of the case and her evidence first, followed by the respondent.  Cross examination was facilitated.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted that she was dismissed on 21 February 2025 when the respondent closed her beauty salon.  She stated that the owner had talked to her previously about providing her resignation to make the paperwork easier on the owner.  She stated that respondent told her that she wished to close down the business and continue to operate on her own without employees.  On the final day in the salon, it closed early, they hugged, and the owner wished her well for the future.

The complainant stated that the respondent did not contact her again until she requested a letter for Social Welfare from her employer, almost a month later.  At that point the owner paid her for the previous four weeks. Told her that although it was never mentioned to her, that she was on lay-off for the previous month, and told her that she could start work again the next Monday.

In evidence the complainant stated that she was asked by the respondent on or around 9 March whether she wanted the respondent to reach out to another salon for alternative employment, but she indicated that she did not want that.

Under cross examination the complainant confirmed that she was never given a termination notice in writing and confirmed that she was paid four weeks in ‘back money’ for the four-week period when she was not working starting from 21 February, 2025.

In relation to mitigating her loss, the complainant submitted that she was looking for alternative employment from shortly after 21 February.  She provided a document showing that she applied for a number of jobs from 21 March onwards.

In response to queries for the respondent’s representative, she confirmed that she was offered her old job back but did not start working for the respondent again.

Under cross examination, it was put to the complainant that she was told of a possible reorganisation of the business where the respondent mentioned a possible option of closing down the premises and continuing to operate on her own.  The complainant confirmed that this was the case.  It was put to her that she was asked to resign but she didn’t resign, stating that there was no valid reason to terminate her.  The complainant confirmed that the business owner hugged her on the final day and wished her the best of luck.  She also stated that after that the respondent offered to seek a job for the complainant in another salon and queried why someone would do this if she still had a job. 

The complainant also confirmed that she was never told in writing that her employment was terminated.  It was put to her that this was inconsistent with a suggestion that she was let go and that although she didn’t return to work, there was no express confirmation of the termination.  The complainant replied that on social media the respondent had noted that things were changing and that she was “continuing on her solo journey” and that she took this as an indication that the she no longer worked for the respondent.

The complainant confirmed that at no point was she told that her job was terminated but replied that at no point was she told that the four weeks were a period of layoff either.

Financial loss:

The complainant confirmed that she started to seek alternative employment after a four-week period and started work on 13 June in another salon.  She stated that she was not working from March to June and that the day that she was seen working in another salon was a training day.

The respondent submitted that there were discussions on moving to a different location and that she was seeking partners to come in as self-employed contractors.  It was submitted that it was never communicated to the complainant that her employment was terminated.  The respondent confirmed that the complainant was told that the four-week period was a period of layoff after the fact.  The respondent submitted that the complainant was offered her job back and although there were discussions, she ultimately refused to return to work.

The respondent stated in evidence that the complainant was a great employee.  She confirmed that she mentioned to the complainant that the business structure might be changing.  She stated that four weeks after the ‘layoff’ began she was contacted by the complainant seeking a letter confirming that her employment had come to an end. 

The witness confirmed that she asked the complainant to voluntarily resign and that the complainant did not do so.  She also confirmed that she offered her help in finding an alternative position.  Cross examination was not availed of.

A witness for the respondent submitted that she observed the complainant working in another salon on May 16, doing a client’s nails.  She confirmed that she did not witness any payment for the service and also that she had no management experience working in a salon.

Financial Loss:

The respondent submitted that the complainant had not suffered a loss of earnings as she was offered the chance to return to work but did not take it up.  It was also submitted that the complainant did not show any evidence of her job search nor of the date when she began to work for the other salon.  It was submitted that it was not clear whether or not there was a loss of earnings and that at the very least the complainant had failed to satisfy the burden of proof that she had incurred a loss of earnings.

The parties agree that the employer raised the prospect that she was changing the structure of the company and that she voiced an intention to continue working with only self-employed contractors.  The parties also agreed that the respondent asked the complainant to resign voluntarily.  Another point of agreement is that the parties wished each other goodbye when they finished up in the work location on 21 February 2025.  There is also no dispute that that the complainant was not told in advance that she was being laid off. 

Under Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, dismissal is defined in the following way:

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer, or

(c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose;

Section 6(1) of the Act states:

 Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

The respondent submitted that there was no dismissal, and accordingly any redundancy ground is not satisfied.  Having regard to the suggestions of the respondent in relation to the future of the business and her comments on Social Media, I find that both a reasonable employee and a reasonable employer would have considered the employment relationship had come to an end.  Therefore, I find that the employee was dismissed and that the dismissal amounted to an unfair dismissal.

As to the matter of financial loss, I have taken the following into account: given that the employer paid the employee for the four weeks ‘layoff’ and then offered the employee her old position back, given that the complainant has not established that she sought employment elsewhere within four weeks of being laid off and that she did not take up the respondents offer to assist in finding another salon, I am not satisfied that the complainant has demonstrated that there was a financial loss.

Section 7 of the Act states as follows:

7.—(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

(a) re-instatement by the employer of the employee in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal, or

(b) re-engagement by the employer of the employee either in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal or in a different position which would be reasonably suitable for him on such terms and conditions as are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

Having regard to my conclusion that the complainant has not demonstrated a financial loss, and to the provisions of Section 7(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, I consider that an award of 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the dismissal is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

The complainant earned an average of €548.75 per week as evidenced from payslips submitted.  Accordingly I find that an award of €2,195 is just and equitable in all the circumstances of this case.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided by the parties, my decision is that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2,195 having regard to all the circumstances.

Unfair dismissal – no financial loss demonstrated – award of 4 weeks salary