Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Xin  Hu

LCCI Limited

Representatives

Damien Lawlor BL                                 Sophie Song Immigration Consultant

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-00068401-001

02/01/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 2nd of January 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

In the interests of fairness, the WRC acquiesced to an application made for the provision of an interpreter. It is noted that the interpreter is provided to assist the Adjudicator to conduct an orderly and fair hearing of the complaints being made by the Complainant in her preferred language. The interpreter did not guide or assist the person for whom the interpreter was sought. The Interpreter simply interpreted what was being said by the Complainant. I perceived there to be no difficulty in communication between the Interpreter and he Complainant. I am satisfied that a slow and mmethodic approach meant the case was given a full and fair hearing.

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in her workplace relations complaint form as follows:

Hello, I am a new person who has only been in Ireland for a year and a half, I have no family or friends here, yesterday I usually went to work at 10 o'clock, the boss told us several employees to start work at 9 o'clock.

When I got to the shop, I remembered the tips the customers gave me a few days ago, the boss did not give me any, I asked him why he did not give me any, he refused to admit it, angry and let me go straight home. A week ago, because he did not pay my taxes, he made me work overtime every day, made me wash my hair, made me dye the hair of customers, I did not want to do it, he made me continue to do it because of the shortage of staff in the shop, I said that after the New Year, your old staff will come back from holiday. Two days ago he found an undocumented little sister for a lower salary, so yesterday he fired me as soon as I arrived at the shop.

I lied to myself that I could not pay the tax because of my identity, but I probably paid the tax because of this incident. I had no benefits and worked overtime without any conditions. I worked from the 10th of December until yesterday without a break and I was so busy that I had no time.

I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 12th of June 2025.  I was provided with some supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case.

I was also provided with some documentation after the hearing. This was sought by me in the course of the hearing and was shared with the other side in accordance with fair procedures.

 The Evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that she was Unfairly dismissed and was looking for financial compensation.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Respondent in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was also represented by a witness Mr. Chang who is a Company Director. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 11th of June 2025. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation, and the Complainant was welcome to question the Respondent witness.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unfair dismissal but, in any event, challenges my jurisdiction in circumstances where the Complainant has not worked with the Respondent for 52 weeks. The relevant section of the UD Act reads:-

Section 2(1)(a) — The Act shall not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless:

"(a) the employee who is dismissed has been in the continuous service of the employer for at least 52 weeks ending on the date of the dismissal..."

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully listened to the evidence of both parties.

The Complainant has confirmed that she did not work with the Respondent for any more than four or five months and has not therefore reached the 52-week threshold needed to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissal legislation.

Ther Respondent has very fairly allowed the Complainant to pursue her claim under the Industrial Relations Acts to avoid delay and in circumstances where the Complainant had stated in the complaint form that she had less then twelve months service but had seemingly introduced a pregnancy related issue which had no relevance but which classified this matter as suitable for a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals legislation when it clearly wasn’t.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00068401-001 – The complaint fails in circumstances where the Complainant does not have the requisite service with the Employer to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals legislation.