ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR-SC-00002740
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Nail Technician | A Beauty Salon |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
Dispute:
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-00002740 | 07/06/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Date of Hearing: 01/04/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker was employed for two days a week as a nail technician for a wage of €223 per week. Her employment was terminated by the Employer after five weeks. The Worker claims that the manner of the dismissal was unfair. The Employer expressed dissatisfaction with both the performance of the Worker and her attendance at work. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker submits the dismissal appears unfair because she had a valid medical reason for a sick day, supported by a doctor’s note, which she states she communicated promptly to the employer when it had to be extended to a week. Despite this, the Worker claims she was dismissed by text without a fair investigation or proper procedure, and while still medically unfit for work. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer claims that the sick note was landed upon her just prior to the June bank holiday weekend, which necessitated her to re-schedule clients and work extended hours. The Employer also gave a plausible account that the Worker was not performing to standard, and she had to bring shoddy work, evidenced by customers photos, to the attention of the Worker |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. Dismissing a person by text without proper procedure can only lead to a finding of procedural unfairness. However, when assessing compensation there were some mitigating factors that I took into account. The Worker was employed for five weeks but was missing for 20% of that time. In the week in question there seemed to have been certainty about the Thursday working, but the Worker was circumspect about coming in on the bank holiday Friday, which in itself caused serious disruption for the Employer. The Employer also gave convincing evidence of shoddy work by the Complainant and whilst this, in itself, did not absolve the Employer from acting unfairly, it showed that the Worker did contribute to her own dismissal. In assessing compensation, I am mindful of the fact that the Worker was also employed in another capacity and worked only minimal hours a week for the Employer. The Worker stated that she continued her nail technician practice as a self-employed person. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. The Employer acted unfairly when dismissing the worker. However, as outlined above there were mitigating factors to be taken into account when assessing compensation. I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €500 in compensation.
Dated: 14-05-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969. |