EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Million Dollar Secrets Limited T/A Million Dollar Secrets
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms C. Egan B.L.
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Galway on 28th June 2016
Claimant: Mr. Michael Kinsley BL instructed by: Louisa C.McKeon, Rhatigan & Co Solicitors, Royal Court Business Park, Liosbaun, Galway
Respondent: Not Present or Represented
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case was set down for hearing at 10.30am on the 28th June 2016. At 10.05am, JF, co-owner of the respondent company emailed the secretariat of the Employment Appeals Tribunal giving a detailed reason as to why she was applying to postpone this hearing. Copies of these emails were read by the Tribunal and the legal representatives for the claimant.
Submissions were heard from counsel on behalf of the claimant to oppose this application.
Having considered the application submitted by correspondence from the respondent and the submission made by counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal decided the hearing would go ahead as scheduled.
The claimant was employed as a Nail Technician and Manager within the respondent’s beauty salon from the 27th of May 2013 until she tendered her resignation on the 1st of April 2015. She was paid a weekly gross wage of €618.36. She had no contract or terms and conditions of employment and there was no company handbook or grievance procedure in place within the respondent company.
The claimant gave uncontested detailed evidence of her employment with the respondent.
At first she and the co-owner (JF) got on well and they socialised together occasionally. Around a year into her employment JF suggested they set up a business together. The claimant told the Tribunal that when she told JF that she could no longer enter into business with her for financial reasons JF began to treat her differently. JF and the other co-owner (M) expected her to do “all the work”. She stated that JF would criticise her work and tell her there were secret CCTV cameras in operation which M monitored constantly. JF also told her no mobile phones were allowed to be used during working hours but she, JF would text the claimant during work hours and expect responses.
Copies of text messages and messages on facebook were opened to the Tribunal from JF to both the claimant and her now estranged husband which they received during and after the claimant had resigned her position.
The claimant told the Tribunal the matter of treatment she received from JF and the other co-owner of the respondent company was damaging to her health and her personal life. She attended her doctor who deemed her unfit to attend work. She submitted a medical certificate for her first week of absence. During this time the claimant said she decided to resign her position as she could no longer work for the respondent.
The claimant told the Tribunal that when she attended the salon to submit her second medical certificate and her resignation, JF was not present. The claimant rang her to inform her that she was leaving her employment. JF told her she “was happy” she, the claimant, was leaving.
The claimant gave detailed evidence of her efforts to mitigate the loss of her earnings.
This is a case of constructive dismissal and therefore the onus is on the claimant to prove her position became so untenable she had no alternative but to resign her position.
Having heard the uncontested evidence and submission adduced the Tribunal finds that the claimant had no alternative but to deem herself constructively dismissed. Accordingly, the Tribunal awards the sum of €25,000 (twenty five thousand euro) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal