ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057343
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Juliette Cullen | Silver Swirl Limited Sensius Laser Hair Removal |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Did not attend and was not represented |
Complaint(s):
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-00069651-001 | 28/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Those in attendance were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, the Complainant made an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission.
In attendance were the Complainant, who gave evidence under affirmation.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, and the written and oral submissions on behalf of the parties.
have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal 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 “…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…”.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
Background:
On the 28/02/2025 04:30:31 the Complainant submitted a complaint to the Commission that they had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The had commenced on the 18/10/2023 and dismissed without notice on the 27/02/2025. The Complainant has over 12 months service to gain reliefs under the Act and has submitted their application within the statute time frame. Their claim was for recognition of an Unfair Dismissal and compensation for losses. The Complainant supplied documents to demonstrate their earrings, their losses and attempts to mitigate their losses through documents and with my permission post hearing. I allowed enough time to elapse for the Respondent to counter this information and no communications were forthcoming. Having heard all the matters relevant, I closed the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It is the Complainant case that after a year and a half of working they were dismissed without notice. They had never been subject to a disciplinary of any kind and was never made aware of any performance issues and on the contrary was often praised and rewarded for their work ethic, sales and client care. The Complainant contends that on the 21/09/2024 the clinic manager was instructed to be stricter with staff and in order to impress management presented the Complainant with a “write up” and to avoid becoming on the radar to just sign this document which was not disciplinary but set general rules and tasks. The Complainant signed this under pressure. On the 26/02/2025 the Complainant was handed a letter dismissing her without explanation or reason. The Complainant sought explanation from the Respondent and received none. The Complainant sets out that they did not receive any procedure or adherence to the tenets of natural justice causing significant emotional stress and financial difficulty. The Complainant sets out that they never received a handbook as set out in the contract of employment detailing the disciplinary processes The Complainant sets out that they enjoyed the work greatly and is heartbroken that given the nature of the work employment in this field will be difficult to replace. The Complainant seeks a decision that the dismissal was unfair and to compensate her for losses for seven and a half weeks unemployment and for the loss of salary and commission. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant attended promptly and presented a well presented, well-structured and logical case with substantial documents available for review. Having asked to Complainant to confirm under affirmation that the complaint was true and correct which they duly did, they presented their case. I found the Complainant to be a highly credible witness to the events and accept their recollection and evidence as being correct. For the sake of clarity, the burden of proof lies entirely on the Respondent to show that the dismissal was fair under s6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. This sets out that a dismissal is presumed to be unfair, and it is the Respondent that bears the burden of proof in substantiating that the dismissal was fair on the balance of probabilities. Clearly the Respondent chose not to attend and rebut the arguments and thus accepts the assertions of the Complainant. As part of my duties, I enquired into the fact of the employment relationship and was satisfied that there was a contract in place. The Complainant was also asked for demonstrative proof that they had attempted to mitigate their losses. They undertook to provide such evidence of applying for other roles in the intervening period between the unfair dismissal and the taking up of new employment. I have allowed them time to provide this. The Complainant has losses of 7.5 weeks salary; plus, lost commission and the role they have acquired is not renumerated at the same level as the role they have trained for and from which they were unfairly dismissed representing an ongoing loss. The Complainant has set out a description of losses and has not sought re-engagement or re-instatement. However, I am required to consider these as a remedy. S7(1)(a) provides that reinstatement shall be in the position which the employee held immediately before dismissal on the terms on which they were employed before and deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal. Reinstatement is entirely within the discretion of the Adjudicator, having regard to all the circumstances. In An Bord Banistíochta Gaelscoil Moshíológ v Labour Court [2024] IESC 38 the Supreme Court addressed the matter of reinstatement and expects me to take into account the conduct of the parties. In all the circumstances of this case, where there is an absolute breakdown in trust between the parties and where the Complainant is already successfully employed in another role; I do not find reinstatement nor re-engagement a suitable remedy. Given that I have concluded that the dismissal is unfair by the conduct of the Respondent and that reinstatement is not appropriate I must move to compensation for losses. Section 7(1)(c) of the Acts: - (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 Section 7(2)(c) provides that in examining the financial loss, an Adjudicator must have regard to the measures adopted by the employee to mitigate loss. The legislation does not allow an Adjudicator to award compensation in an amount that goes beyond the financial loss attributable to the dismissal. I am mindful of the decision of the Labour Court in Cityjet and Ramon Sanchez Gil (UDD215) where the Court removed compensation from an Adjudicator’s decision where there was no demonstration of mitigation of loss. The Complainant in this instance has demonstrated to my satisfaction the following losses: I am satisfied with the evidence of the Complainant attempts to mitigate their loss and taking into account all the circumstances of this case I am awarding the Complainant total compensation under the Acts i.e. 7.5 weeks’ pay at €590 per week (€4425), €1000 in lost commission and €2000 in ongoing diminished salary and bonus payment as is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the complaint to a total amount of €7,425. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act and 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.
For the reasons outlined above I find the complaint well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the following: 7.5 weeks’ pay at €590 per week (€4425), €1000 in lost commission and €2000 in ongoing diminished salary and bonus payment as is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the complaint to a total amount of €7,425. |
Dated: 25/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
Failure to attend, ongoing losses, commission, failure to adhere to procedures, mitigated loss |