INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
L'AVENUE HAIR AND BEAUTY CLINIC
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with L'Avenue Hair and Beauty Clinic on the 19th of June, 1998 as a hair stylist. Her employment was terminated on the 17th of April, 1999. The Company argues that the worker failed to achieve targets which had been laid down in order to make her employment viable.
The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 2nd of July, 1999 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of August, 1999.
3. 1. The worker received no warnings from management in relation to her work performance and was led to believe that her employment was secure and permanent.
2. The worker had been permanently employed for 3 years prior to her employment with L'Avenue Hair and Beauty Clinic. She resigned from this position following an approach from the Company with an offer of a position in its new Salon.
3. The worker's dismissal caused her many problems as she was in the process of re-mortgaging her house.
4. The Company's claim that the worker was dismissed for financial reasons is disputed by the worker on the basis that 2/3 weeks after her dismissal it advertised for new staff and subsequently appointed two new staff members. The worker was unfairly treated and in the circumstances should be compensated for her loss.
4. 1. When the worker was recruited management was assured that she would attract clientele and that within 6 months she would have a weekly take of £800. She was aware of this target and agreed that it was achievable.
2. No new full-time members of staff have been appointed since the worker's dismissal and currently the Company is not in a position to employ any new staff.
3. The worker failed to achieve the target laid down in order to make her employment viable and it was with regret that management was left with no option but to terminate her employment.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy as a result of the failure of the Salon to reach the anticipated level of business. However, the Court accepts that the circumstances giving rise to this redundancy were not adequately explained to the claimant at the time the decision to terminate her employment was taken.
In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the claimant had been approached to take up employment with the Salon while she was in a secure position with another employer, the Court recommends that an ex-gratia severance payment of £750 be made to the claimant in full and final settlement of all claims against the employer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th September, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.