ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009186
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A beauty therapist | A Hair and Beauty Business |
Representatives | None | None |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00012074-001 | 22 June 2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00012074-002 | 22 June 2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00012074-003 | 22 June 2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00012074-004 | 22 June 2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:25 January 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 22nd June 2017, the complainant referred complaints pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Redundancy Payments Act. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 25th January 2018. The complainant and a witness for the respondent attended the adjudication.
In accordance Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant asserts that she was unfairly dismissed by the respondent and has also not been paid a redundancy lump sum entitlement. The respondent denies the claims. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant started working for a predecessor of the respondent on the 2nd September 2014. She had been employed full time. On the 21st March 2017, the complainant was told by two respondent managers that they no longer wanted the beauty aspect of the business. She explained that she was busy and did not see why she was being let go. They said that she could finish up on Friday. The next day, the complainant said that she was entitled to two weeks’ written notice and that she was entitled to redundancy. She gave the respondent information about the redundancy scheme.
On Friday 31st March 2017, the complainant received a letter giving her two weeks’ notice to finish on the 14th April 2017. They offered that she could take over the running of the beauty side of the business for €250 per month plus bills. The complainant said that she could not afford to be self-employed or to take over the business. There were no other offers. A former colleague informed her that the respondent had kept the beauty side open after the complainant left.
The complainant said that her gross weekly wage was €454. There were always issues with her pay slips and the amounts deducted. The business was taken over when she worked there and taken over again. She was told that there was a transfer of undertaking. One manager always asked her to go to the witness present if there was an issue in the business.
The complainant explained that she was doing bar work at the moment and she had always done this job. She was also doing a part-time education course in childcare and this started in September 2017. It is a two-year course.
In reply to the respondent, the complainant denied having tenants and this was also beside the point. She acknowledged selling beauty products to family and friends, for which she advertised on Facebook. She had always done this and did not take clients of the respondent’s. She had declined work from former clients. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The witness outlined that the complainant started with one owner and worked for her. A successor owner had asked her to leave before he took over. The witness said that the person who worked on the beauty side did so for commission. The complainant was offered the opportunity to run the beauty aspect by herself and to share the costs. The witness had taken over the business at the end of March or beginning of April 2017. The beauty part was running at a loss for quite some time. The business was a hairdresser and there had been no targets for the beauty business.
The complainant was given notice and made the offer of running the business. She was advertising on Facebook for clients and she always had her own clients. This was not fair for the business. She had two or three businesses, for example selling beauty products. She also had tenants, so she is not out of pocket. He said that he did not really know what went on before he took over the business. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant commenced working for the respondent on the 2nd September 2014 and this came to an end on the 14th April 2017. The respondent is a private individual who operates a hair and beauty salon. The complainant was paid €454 per week and worked 38 hours per week.
In respect of the Unfair Dismissal claim, the respondent advanced that the beauty side of the business was operating at a loss. He did not provide evidence to support this, for example accounts. This was contradicted by persuasive evidence from the complainant, who spoke with a former colleague now carrying out the beauty therapist role in the salon. It follows that the respondent has not shown that a redundancy situation existed, nor that it was entitled to terminate the complainant’s employment on this ground.
The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. I note that the complainant continued to work an evening role which she had always done. She commenced a childcare course in September 2017. Taking these factors together, I award the complainant redress of €7,500.
In respect of the redundancy payments complaints, the second and third complaints are duplicates of the first Redundancy Payments Act claim. As I have found that a redundancy situation did not exist, the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00012074-001 For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €7,500.
CA-00012074-002 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act is not well founded as there was no redundancy situation.
CA-00012074-003 This complaint is not well founded as it is a duplicate of CA-00012074-002.
CA-00012074-004 This complaint is not well founded as it is a duplicate of CA-00012074-002.
|
Dated: 21st June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Act / no redundancy situation Redundancy Payments Act |