Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Beautician

Salon

Representatives

Damian Lawlor BL                              Sophie Song Solr.                              IMK Law Solicitors

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 - 00004770

02/01/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. Any recommendations being made on foot of the hearing is anonymised.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 2nd of January 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in her workplace relations complaint form as follows:

Hello, I am a new person who has only been in Ireland for a year and a half, I have no family or friends here, yesterday I usually went to work at 10 o'clock, the boss told us several employees to start work at 9 o'clock.

When I got to the shop, I remembered the tips the customers gave me a few days ago, the boss did not give me any, I asked him why he did not give me any, he refused to admit it, angry and let me go straight home. A week ago, because he did not pay my taxes, he made me work overtime every day, made me wash my hair, made me dye the hair of customers, I did not want to do it, he made me continue to do it because of the shortage of staff in the shop, I said that after the New Year, your old staff will come back from holiday. Two days ago he found an undocumented little sister for a lower salary, so yesterday he fired me as soon as I arrived at the shop.

I lied to myself that I could not pay the tax because of my identity, but I probably paid the tax because of this incident. I had no benefits and worked overtime without any conditions. I worked from the 10th of December until yesterday without a break and I was so busy that I had no time.

I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 12th of June 2025.  I was provided with some other supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case.

I was also provided with some documentation after the hearing. This was sought by me in the course of the hearing and was shared with the other side in accordance with fair procedures.

The Evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed in circumstances where she did not have 52 weeks service and she was looking for financial compensation.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on how the industrial relations disputes are dealt with.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was also represented by a witness Mr. C who is a Company Director. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 11th of June 2025. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation, and the Complainant was welcome to question the Respondent witness.

Ther Respondent has very fairly allowed the Complainant to pursue her claim under the Industrial Relations Acts to avoid delay and in circumstances where the Complainant had stated in the complaint form that she had less then twelve months service but had seemingly introduced a pregnancy related issue which had no relevance but which classified this matter as suitable for a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals legislation when it clearly wasn’t.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Complainant gave evidence that she was getting paid €800.00 cash for each week of her employment with the Respondent entity. The Respondent denied this figure was correct and he said that he was paying the Complainant’s tax and PRSI in the ordinary way as she was working for him part time on a relevant student visa. The Complainant was seemingly also studying in Ireland per the visa.

I understand that the student visa expired in October of 2024, and the Employer was concerned that the Complainant had not applied for or yet received confirmation of a new visa becoming available.

On the day that the relationship between the parties broke down, the Respondent witness Mr. C was questioning the Complainant about her visa status and application. The Complainant it seems might have then challenged Mr. C in connection with unpaid tips which she believed he had withheld. Mr. C denied he had withheld a €20.00 sum of money and gave evidence that tips are between technicians and the customers.

The only corroborating piece of evidence was a piece of phone video footage wherein the Complainant appears to be shouting at Mr. C on the shop floor. In the footage Mr. C is telling her to get out and he turns his back on the Complainant and walks away. Mr. C agreed that this was not a good management style, and it was open to him to communicate with the Complainant after this workplace bust-up. He had not done this.

On balance I have to accept that the Respondent is obliged (for the sake of all employees) to ensure that everyone is law abiding and is working under a valid current Visa. If there is doubt about legal status, the Respondent needs to make inquiries. I asked that the Respondent witness provide me with some evidence that at the time of the purported dismissal (as witnessed in the camera footage) the Respondent was lawfully employing the Complainant in the manner that he says he was as the evidence seemed to point in the direction of the Complainant being some class of an undocumented employee getting paid cash without PRSI and Tax deductions. On foot of the Tax Deduction Card I have since had sight of, I am satisfied that the Complainant had been lawfully employed with the Respondent from October to December 2025. I am further satisfied that the Complainant’s work Visa had expired and that whilst I understand that there is usually a grace period, it is unwise for an Employer to continue to engage an Employee without a full visa. The Contract of Employment, such that it was, had become void by reason of the illegality at the root of the engagement.