Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Designer

Medical and Aesthetics services

Representatives

Self – represented   

 Employer Director, Administration Manager and a Doctor employed in the clinic.

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

 IR - SC - 00003788

19/02/2025

The worker submitted a dispute concerning the unfairness of the termination of her contract on 5/2/2025.

She commenced employment with the employer on 17/10/2024 on a one-year contract scheduled  to run until 16/10/2025.

She earned €13.50 an hour and worked 24 hours a week.

She referred her dispute to the WRC on 9/02/2025.

The worker submits that she was fired suddenly and without any procedure on the 5/2/2025.

She had worked 3 days a week during this period as a graphic designer on materials, and campaigns for the clinic which offered medical and aesthetic services and treatments. She also covered for the promotion of dental services when required.

She had requested sick leave on 24/2/2025. The employer accepted her request for leave.

The administrator told her that she should tell the employer when she was recovered and fit for work. She sent a message to the employer on 1/2/2025 asking for confirmation of her work schedule for the following week and advised that she had recovered.

The worker telephoned the employer on the 5/2/2025 to say she was returning that day. The worker checked the rota and saw that she was not rostered for any day.

The clinic Manager sent the worker a message on 5/2/2025 asking if she could attend a video call with herself and the Administrator /HR manager. At this meeting, the Administrator told her that the company was expanding fast, and they doubted if she would be able to handle the workload. The company would contact her. She was not told of the purpose of the meeting of 5/2/2025 at which she was dismissed.

The worker maintains that she was fully competent to do the work and do the quality of her work was excellent

She received an email from the Manager on 5/2/2025 stating her employment was terminated with immediate effect. She left at that point. She sent a letter requesting an explanation for her termination to no avail.

Although contracted to work part time, she believes that her refusal to move from part time to full time work- a proposition put to her by the employer in January 2025- drove her dismissal.

Concerning what she describes as bullying behaviour by a doctor in the clinic, she confirmed that she did not complain about his behaviour to anyone.

Her last salary was paid on 21/2/2025 to the amount of €346.52

Concerning her point that she was paid less than the minimum wage, she confirmed that she had not sought a statement of her earnings from the employer.

Th respondent failed to offer her any appeal against her dismissal.

The employer denies the complainant’s assertion that she had been dismissed unfairly or that she had been treated unfairly.

The company provides medical and dental treatment, aesthetics and Chinese herb treatments to clients.

The employer Director advised that the main problem with the worker was her inadequate English. He stated that he prefers to hire local or European staff, who live near and can walk to the office. The Director stated that after 4 months in their employment, she had a poor grasp of what the company does.  Her designs did not promote the company very well. They had extended her probation at an earlier stage as she was not sufficiently productive.

Contrary to what she has stated, he did not ask her to work during her break time. Everyone works under pressure in the clinic.

The complainant never discussed any issues or concerns with the employer before they fired her. They have a HR Manager, but use a HR external company to draw up contacts etc. They only have an employee handbook since 8/2/2025.

They paid her 2 weeks’ notice upon termination.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The submissions received by the parties disclose that that the complainant was ambushed and called to a meeting on the 5/2/2025, without any advance notice of what was contemplated for that meeting, without any option of having someone accompany her and without any detail or evidence as to why her employment should be terminated. She went to the meeting under the guise of it being a return-to-work meeting.

The submissions of the employer were contradictory and unconvincing.

On the one hand, the Administrator stated that the termination was down to the fact that the company was struggling financially and supplied bank statements to support this.

On the other hand, the Director criticised her performance, saying astonishingly that he would prefer local or European employees who lived locally, and who could walk to the workplace. A highly unusual requirement to retain one’s job.

Termination.

The employer had no disciplinary procedure in place at the time of the worker’s termination

The safety net for such employees exists in the form of S.I 146/2000 which serves to protect the rights of workers to fairness and justice.

Section 1 of S.I 146/2000 specifies that disciplinary procedures should be handled in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness

Section 4.1 sates:

“The essential elements of any procedure for dealing with grievance and disciplinary issues are that they be rational and fair, that the basis for disciplinary action is clear, that the range of penalties that can be imposed is well-defined and that an internal appeal mechanism is available.

 That details of any allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned;

                                •    That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints;

                                •   That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure;

                                •   That the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors or circumstances”.

The worker’s dismissal was far removed from the principles set out in S.1146/2000. It was wholly wanting in fairness and natural justice.

 I recommend that the employer pay here the sum of €5000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Regarding her complaint that she was paid below the minimum wage, she did not seek a statement of earnings from the employer.

Furthermore, this dispute is referred under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Summary dismissal.