Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martina Reilly

KS Avenue Salon Limited (in voluntary liquidation)

Representatives

 N/A

 N/A

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-00064834-001

17/07/2024

The Complainant worked as a Hair Stylist for the Respondent from 14 September 2020 until 31 May 2024. She worked 24 hours per week, earning €404.43 gross per week. The Complainant submits that following a disagreement with the Respondent, she was unfairly dismissed in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015, as amended. The Respondent denies the claim in full. The Respondent submits that an ongoing issue regarding the Complainant’s wages led to an argument which resulted in the Complainant voluntarily leaving her role. In the circumstances, the Respondent submits that there was no dismissal and that the Complainant fails to meet the burden of proof.

The Complainant provided written and oral submissions.

The Complainant outlined that she worked for the Respondent as a Hair Stylist since September 2020. Her tasks involved looking after customers, styling hair, and taking phone calls. She had one employee colleague and they worked alongside the co-directors, who are also sisters – Sabrina and Karen Hughes.

The Complainant outlined that she worked there a long time and there were never any issues. She outlined that, in 2023, she agreed with the Respondent and with Revenue that she would pay her Local Property Tax (the “LPT”) payments through her wages so that she would not miss a payment. The Complainant subsequently noted that the LPT payments did not appear to be coming out of her wages. The Complainant raised the matter with Karen Hughes, who stated that she would speak with the accountant. The accountant subsequently indicated that the Complainant had tax credits.

The Complainant outlined that it later transpired, in May 2024, that the LPT payments had not been deducted from her wages and that she was told that she owed the Respondent approximately €1,500. She agreed to arrange a weekly repayment plan with the Respondent. She said that it was “laid back” and there were “no issues”. The following week on 15 / 16 May2024, the Complainant stated that she and Karen Hughes agreed on a repayment of €25 per week. The Complainant outlined that she was upset by a letter dated 22 May 2024 which she subsequently received from the Respondent. The letter outlined, inter alia, that the Respondent would make a weekly deduction of €50 per week from her wages to cover the LPT payments.

On 24 May 2024, the Complainant attended work and spoke with Karen Hughes, who she said always dealt with her wages. The Complainant told Karen that the Respondent could not deduct €50 per week, as they had an agreement for a repayment plan of €25 per week. The Complainant outlined that Karen Hughes shouted at her “I pay my property tax. This has nothing to do with me”. The Complainant outlined that she then took her hair dryer and said: “I’m out of here”. Karen Hughes asked her “Are you leaving?” to which the Complainant replied “yes”. The Complainant outlined that there was a customer there and that there was “nobanging of furniture”.

The Complainant outlined that she wanted mediation and that she wanted to resolve the matter. She also wanted to work locally. The Complainant said that the thought that the Respondent would call her, but it did not.

The Complainant outlined that she got an appointment with her G.P. who found that her blood pressure was up. The Complainant stated that she had never taken a sick day before. She said that she sent in a sick note with her husband to the Respondent on Wednesday 29 May 2024, which stated that she was off work for two weeks.

The Complainant outlined that her employee colleague called her and told her that “they couldn’t take sick notes”. The Complainant then received a letter from the Respondent dated 31 May 2024 which stated that the Respondent had accepted her resignation.

The Complainant outlined that she emailed the Respondent on 5 June 2024. In that email she stated, inter alia:

“As you are aware I have been to the doctor and I now have high blood pressure and am struggling with this stressful situation I found myself in. I have never been in a situation like this before and I feel it was totally unnecessary. As you know, the incident occurred on 24 May 2024 and I felt like you left me no option but to leave as it was quiet (sic) confrontational. I was hoping you would contact me for a resolve.”

The Complainant outlined that she received no response and so she sent a registered letter to the Respondent in which she enclosed her email dated 5 June 2024. She also stated, inter alia:

“I have an issue with my employment being terminated as I never resigned and as you are aware I was on sick leave. On that particular day I just felt it necessary to remove myself from the situation as it was confrontational”.

The Respondent replied by letter dated 25 June 2024, indicating that it had accepted her resignation dated 24 May 2024. The Complainant then made a complaint to the WRC.

The Complainant outlined that she was “off sick” until October 2024. She stated that she started in a new role as a hair stylist in Donabate on 2 March 2025, where she works one day per week and earns €120 per day. She outlined that from the end of June / beginning of July 2025, she will work four days per week.

The Complainant outlined that she applied for positions in playschools and for a position as a tour guide. However, she had no success as she needed to do the requisite courses. She then applied for her current job when a former colleague put her name forward.

The Complainant stated that she did not think that it would come to this. She said that it is “so unnecessary”. She stated that she never had any issues with any employment.

Cross-Examination:

The Complainant stated that in early 2023, she told Karen Hughes that the LPT payment was not coming out of her wages. The Complainant stated that she then completely forgot about it.

The Complainant stated that on 24 May 2024, Karen Hughes asked her if she was leaving and she (the Complainant) responded “I’m out of here”.

The Complainant was asked if she “admitted to leaving”. The Complainant stated that she never gave her resignation. She said that she left the salon.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent “took it that she was leaving when she packed up everything”. In response, the Complainant said that she just took her hairdryer.

It was put to the Complainant that Karen and Sabrina Hughes were not confrontational with her and that, at the time, Sabrina was sitting, doing her hair. The Complainant stated that “Karen was standing up, full force shouting.”

The Complainant was asked if she was satisfied that she owed the Respondent €1,533.11. The Complainant said no. The Complainant stated that she had a letter from Revenue outlining that it has received €564 and that she is paying Revenue.

The Respondent provided written and oral submissions.

The Respondent provided written submissions on the day of the Hearing. These submissions addressed a timeline of events from January 2023, when the Respondent agreed to the Complainant’s request that her Local Property Tax (“LPT”) payments be paid through her wages; to June 2024, when the Respondent wrote to the Complainant, confirming, inter alia, her resignation and July 2024, when the Respondent received correspondence from the WRC.

In subsequent submissions, the Respondent took issue with the fact that the Complainant provided a medical certificate after she had ceased attending work and without seeking any sick leave. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s husband provided her medical certificate after she had “walked out of” the workplace. In the circumstances, the Respondent submitted that it could not have taken it into account, when “decisions regarding [the Complainant’s] employment were made”. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant had failed to adequately mitigate her losses and referred specifically to the period from May to July 2024 for which there was no evidence of any job applications.

Ms. Sabrina Hughes – Evidence:

Ms. Sabrina Hughes is an ex-director of the Respondent.

Ms. Hughes stated that in January 2023, the Complainant approached her and Ms. Karen Hughes and stated that she wanted to pay her revenue bill through her wages. She said that they discussed the LPT payments required. She stated that the Complainant approached them in January / February 2023 and told them that the LPT payments were not coming out of her wages. Ms. Hughes said that Ms. Karen Hughes indicated that she would contact Revenue. She said that nothing further happened until May 2024.

Ms. Hughes outlined that on 17 May 2024, there was a meeting with the Complainant during which she and Ms. Karen Hughes told the Complainant that the LPT payments had not been deducted from her wages. She said that the Complainant refused to pay any money at all and told them that it was their problem. The Respondent outlined that no agreement as regards a repayment plan was reached and so the letter dated 22 May 2024 was subsequently sent to the Complainant. This letter stated that €50 per week would be deducted from the Complainant’s wages and appended a copy of the Complainant’s contract.

Ms. Hughes outlined that, on 24 May 2024, she received a text message at about 9am from the Complainant, who sought a meeting. She said that the Complainant arrived at the salon and that she was “agitated” and “waving” the contract around, saying how unhappy she was. Ms. Hughes said that the Complainant asked for a word with her, however, she was doing her own hair. She said that the Complainant followed Ms. Karen Hughes into the staffroom, where they were speaking “very loudly to each other”. She said “you couldn’t help but hear” them. She stated that the Complainant was swearing. Ms. Hughes stated that the Complainant went over to “her section” and emptied out all of her belongings and shoved everything into her bag. Ms. Hughes stated that the Complainant “was hitting off” a nearby trolley and that she slammed the steriliser door. She said that the Complainant walked back to Ms. Karen Hughes and “they continued back and forth”. Ms. Hughes said that the Complainant then said: “I’m out of here […] I’m leaving”. Ms. Karen Hughes said: “Where are you going?” The Complainant responded: “I’m leaving”. Ms. Hughes stated that they took this as the Complainant leaving her job.

Ms. Hughes stated that they were shocked by what had happened. She said that they were devasted that the Complainant had taken this approach. Ms Hughes stated that the Complainant had been paid to work that day and the following day. She said that it was a hectic weekend and that the Complainant had a full list of clients. She said that they had holy communion clients booked in for the following day and that the Complainant had left them in the lurch. Ms. Hughes said that they had to rearrange appointments.

Ms. Hughes outlined that on the following Wednesday morning, the Complainant’s husband dropped a sick cert for the Complainant into the salon. She stated that the sick cert had been back-dated to the Friday, when the Complainant had left.

Ms Hughes said they sent a letter dated 31 May 2024 to the Complainant which indicated, inter alia, that they had accepted her resignation and that they wished her the best.

Ms. Hughes stated that they did not hear anything until 19 June 2024 when they received a registered letter from the Complainant. Ms. Hughes said that they did not see the Complainant’s email dated 5 June 2024, however, she “accept[s] that it was sent”.

Ms. Hughes stated that a further letter was sent to the Complainant dated 25 June 2024, to answer her email dated 5 June 2024 and to provide details regarding the balance of monies that she owed to the Respondent. Ms. Hughes stated that the following month, the Respondent received a letter from the WRC.

Ms. Hughes stated that she agreed with the Complainant that it did not have to come to this. She said that the incident on 24 May 2024 was unnecessary and that they could have sat down and discussed it. She said that they took it that the Complainant resigned and left that morning.

Cross-Examination:

Ms. Hughes stated that it was her recollection that the Complainant came to her and Ms. Karen Hughes “crying” about what she owed to Revenue.

Ms. Hughes denied that the Complainant had agreed to a repayment plan of €25 per week from her wages.

Ms Hughes stated that the Complainant was firm in her refusal to pay the monies owed or to engage in a resolution. She said that the Complainant proceeded to come into work and worked confidently.

Ms. Hughes confirmed that €25 had been deducted from the Complainant’s wages on 18 May 2024.

Ms. Hughes stated that the Complainant did admit to leaving and did bang the salon furniture.

Ms. Hughes stated that the Complainant had never been aggressive or unreasonable.

It was put to Ms. Hughes that the Complainant gave her every opportunity to resolve the matter, but the Respondent “shut [her] down”. Ms. Hughes said that after 24 May 2024, she never saw the Complainant again and that is when the letters “started coming”. Ms. Hughes said that there was never a chance to resolve the matter. Ms. Hughes stated that the Respondent acted “in the proper manner with letters to resolve it”.

The Complainant put it to Ms. Hughes that she had received her G.P. letter and that she could have called her. Ms. Hughes responded that the Complainant could also have called her.

The Law – Unfair Dismissal:

Section 1(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act (the “UD Act”) defines “dismissal”, inter alia, as follows:

“(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.

The general rule is that an unambiguous and unconditional resignation brings a contract of employment to an end. Redmond on Dismissal Law, at paragraph 22.22, notes “[w]hen unambiguous words of resignation are used by an employee to an employer, and are so understood by the employer, generally it is safe to conclude that the employee has resigned. However, context is everything. A resignation should not be taken at face value where in the circumstances, there were heated exchanges or where the employee was unwell at the time. The intellectual make up of the employee may also be relevant.”

The Labour Court has provided guidance on “heat of the moment” resignations or where events could be construed that there was a resignation, but that circumstances when studied further might suggest otherwise. In Millet v Shinkwin 2004 [E.L.R. 319] (the “Millet Case”) the employee resigned following an acrimonious exchange with her employer. The Labour Court found that the complainant’s subsequent decision to write a letter of resignation was not a fully informed and calculated act. The Labour Court held:

“That where an employee makes a decision to resign which is not fully informed because he / she is not in a position to fully evaluate his / her options or he / she may act on a misinterpretation of something which is said or done and the situation is still retrievable, it would be unreasonable for an employer to deny an employee an opportunity to recant within a reasonable time once the true position becomes clear and such a denial may in the circumstances amount to a dismissal.”

The Millet Case referred to a body of case law which holds that an apparently unconditional and unambiguous resignation may be vitiated by the circumstances in which it is proffered. For example, in Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham [1992] I.R.L.R. 156, it was noted at paragraph 31:

“If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment, personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken, or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure (‘being jostled into a decision’) and indeed the intellectual makeup of the individual may be relevant (see Barclay [1983] I.R.L.R. 313). These we refer to as ‘special circumstances’. Where ‘special circumstances’ arise, it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employer's risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the ‘special circumstances’ the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively.”

Findings – Unfair Dismissal:

It is common case that there was an acrimonious exchange between the Parties on 24 May 2024. However, there is some dispute between the Parties regarding the meaning of the Complainant’s words “I’m out of here” (as stated by the Complainant) or “I’m out of here […] I’m leaving” (as stated by the Respondent). It was the Complainant’s position that she felt it necessary to remove herself from the hair salon, following the acrimonious exchange. She also referred to her high blood pressure. It was the Respondent’s position that the Complainant had resigned.

It was also common case that some five days later, on 29 May 2024, the Complainant’s husband hand-delivered the Complainant’s sick cert to the Respondent. The Complainant also emailed the Respondent on 5 June 2024, stating, inter alia, “As you know, the incident occurred on 24 May 2024 and I felt like you left me no option but to leave as it was quiet (sic) confrontational. I was hoping you would contact me for a resolve”. When there was no response to her email, she followed it up with a registered letter dated 18 June 2024, stating, inter alia, that she “never resigned”.

As outlined above, the Labour Court has provided guidance on “heat of the moment” resignations or where events could be construed that there was a resignation, but that circumstances when studied further might suggest otherwise. I note that the Millet Case, held inter alia: “it would be unreasonable for an employer to deny an employee an opportunity to recant within a reasonable time once the true position becomes clear and such a denial may in the circumstances amount to a dismissal.”

I note that the Complainant sought to engage with the Respondent and sought to clarify that she had not resigned within a reasonable time, however the Respondent denied her an opportunity to recant what she said. In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

The Law – Redress:

Redress for unfair dismissal is provided for under section 7 of the UDA and includes: re-instatement, or re-engagement, or compensation for financial loss attributable to the dismissal, not exceeding 104 weeks remuneration.

In determining the level of compensation payable to the Complainant, I am guided by section 7(2) of the UD Act which outlines matters for consideration, including: the employer’s compliance with fair procedure; the extent to which the employee’s conduct contributed to the dismissal; and the employee’s duty to mitigate any loss. As regards mitigation of loss, section 7(2)(c) of the UD Act refers to: “the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid”.

In Sheehan v. Continental Administration Co Ltd UD 858/1999 (the “Sheehan Case”), the Employment Appeals Tribunal considered the complainant’s mitigation efforts and held:

“A Complainant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work. It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work.

[…]

The time that a Complainant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.”

Findings – Redress:

As the Respondent is now in voluntary liquidation, I find that the only appropriate redress available is compensation.

I note that according to the Complainant’s evidence, she was out of work from May 2024 until March 2025. It was also the Complainant’s evidence that she was on sick leave from May 2024 until October 2024. The Complainant provided documentation, as outlined above, concerning her sick leave and her job applications.

The Complainant worked in hairdressing for approximately 30 years. By way of mitigation of loss, I note that she provided evidence of only four job applications and two course applications that she submitted, until she secured her current position. The Complainant appeared to be unqualified and / or had little or no directly-applicable experience for three of those four jobs – a trainee dental nurse; a childcare worker; and a tour guide. In the circumstances, the Complainant’s efforts to seek employment were entirely inadequate and amounted to a failure to mitigate her loss as required by the UD Act and the Sheehan Case.

Accordingly, having regard specifically to her failure to mitigate her loss, I award the Complainant four weeks’ pay which comes to €1,617.72.

Conclusion:

For the reasons set out above, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. In the circumstances, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,617.72.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and that this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €1,617.72.

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015.