UDD2650

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00045952 (CA-00056834-004)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 10 November 2023 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 January 2026.

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DETERMINATION:

1. Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Natalia Draganel (“the Complainant”) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision dated 10 November 2023 given under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) in a claim that she was unfairly dismissed by her former employer, Gfa Salon Limited Atelier M (“the Respondent”).

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded, as the Complainant did not have sufficient service to bring a complaint under the Act.

2. Background to the Labour Court hearing

The Complainant appealed the decision to the Labour Court on 20 December 2023.

The Court postponed hearing dates set for 25 February 2025, 24 April 2025, 17 July 2025, and 25 September 2025 following applications made to postpone those hearing dates due to the unavailability of the Complainant or the Respondent at various times. The appeal was relisted for hearing on 28 January 2026. The Respondent failed to attend the scheduled hearing on that date.

Having heard from the Complainant’s representative, the Court decided to proceed with the hearing as scheduled. In arriving at that decision, the Court took account of the fact that it notified both parties of the hearing date by letter and by email on 25 November 2025, The Respondent did not respond to several attempts made by the Court Secretariat to contact it in advance of the hearing date. The Court received no replies to emails sent on 19 January 2026, and the 26 January 2026 requesting that the Respondent confirm its attendance at the hearing. The Court is satisfied from previous engagements between the Respondent and the Court administration, when the Respondent sought and was granted a postponement of an earlier hearing date, that it used the correct email address for the Respondent. The Court received no replies from the Respondent to phone calls made by the Court Secretary on the day before and the morning of the hearing. The Respondent provided no satisfactory explanation in advance for its non-appearance at the scheduled hearing of the appeal. No application to postpone the hearing was received by the Court. The Complainant’s representative requested that the hearing proceed, as the Complainant was present at the hearing and was entitled have the appeal heard and determined.

3. Summary of the Complainant’s Position

The Complainant commenced working for the Respondent on the 9 May 2022. She worked an average of 40 hours per week and was paid €15.00 per hour. Her last day of work was 16 May 2023. The Complainant was unfairly dismissed without notice on 16 May 2022.

The Complainant gave evidence that she started work with the Respondent sometime in April 2022 as a trainee. The Respondent paid her in cash, and she did not receive payslips, initially. After a couple of weeks, the Respondent placed her on the roster, which shows that she was rostered for duty on the weeks commencing 9 May 2022 and 16 May 2022. The Complainant signed a starter form on 17 May 2022 to provide her bank details to the Respondent, after which her wages were paid directly to her bank account.

On or around 13 April 2023, the owner’s wife approached the Complainant at work in the kitchen and started screaming at her, as she thought that the Complainant was having a relationship with her husband. The owner told the Complainant to go home and that he would contact her. The next day, the owner contacted her and said that his wife was ill. He asked her to work on Saturday 15 April.

The Complainant attended work on the Saturday. She thought the owner’s wife would apologise to her for her behaviour but instead she used terrible words and called the Complainant a ‘bitch.’ The Complainant could not work in that environment. Her brother came to collect her from work. The owner told the Complainant to take her holidays a little earlier than she had planned and that everything would be sorted on her return.

On the same day, Saturday 15 April 2023, the owner's wife sent the Complainant a text message which stated: "Please do not come back to the salon; I am his wife and it is also my decision who works here. He is still my husband and my salon. Then, you can do whatever you want."

The Respondent paid the Complainant when she was on holidays. On her return she contacted the owner about returning to work in the salon. The owner asked the Complainant to text his wife and sort out the situation to get back to salon. The Complainant sent the following text message to the owner’s wife on 16 May 2023:

"Hi Anna, I hope you are well. I'm writing to you because I think we should meet for coffee and discuss how to solve our situation. When would you be available to meet? Thank you!".

After sending the message, the Complainant received a call from the owner’s wife who told the Complainant that she was "not set foot in the salon" and subjected her to abusive language. When she phoned the owner to ask why he had not told her about the dismissal, he just said that he was sorry. The Complainant understood that the Respondent terminated her employment on 16 May 2023.

On 22 May 2023, the Complainant sent an email requesting a letter stating the reason for the dismissal. The Respondent ignored her request and did not contact her again.

The Complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. She secured alternative work in mid-June 2023, where she was paid €13.50 per hour for the first few weeks while training and €15.00 per hour thereafter.

4. Position of the Respondent

The Respondent did not attend the hearing to defend the appeal.

5. The Relevant Law

Section 2(1)(a) of the Act provides:

“This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him.”

Section 6(1) of the Act states:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

6. Deliberations

An employee must establish that they have one year’s continuous service with an employer to maintain a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Act. In this case, the Complainant submits that she commenced working for the Respondent in April 2022 and was dismissed without notice on 16 May 2023.

The Complainant’s testimony was that she commenced work with the Respondent as a trainee on an unspecified date in April 2022 and was subsequently placed on the roster as a stylist with effect from 9 May 2022. In support of that testimony, the Complainant opened to the Court two copies of what she said was the salon roster for the weeks commencing 9 and 16 May 2022, in which her name was recorded. The Court found the Complainant to be a credible witness and accepts her uncontested testimony that she was placed on the roster to work from 9 May 2022.

The Court further accepts the Complainant’s evidence that she was initially paid in cash and did not receive payslips until she signed a starter form on 17 May 2022, for the purposes of providing her bank account details to Respondent. Her evidence was that after providing her bank details, the Respondent paid her wages to her via bank transfer and she received payslips.

Having regard to the above, the Court finds the Complainant was in the employment of the Respondent on 9 May 2022.

The Complainant contends that her employment ended on 16 May 2023. She disputes the assertion made by her former employer at the WRC hearing that her employment ended on 15 April 2023 following an exchange of texts with the owner’s wife. The Complainant’s evidence was that the salon owner instructed her to take holidays after the incident at the salon on 15 April 2023. Her testimony was that she took her holidays and contacted the owner on her return, as instructed. A payslip dated 12 May 2023, indicating that the Complainant was paid €511.76 during that pay period, supports her assertion that she remained in the employment of the Respondent in early May 2023.

The Complainant texted the owner’s wife on 16 May 2023 to arrange to meet with her. The Court accepts the Complainant’s testimony that she texted the owner’s wife at the behest of the owner, and that, in reply, the owner’s wife phoned her and instructed her not to set foot in the salon again. The Complainant said that she understood from that exchange that the Respondent had terminated her employment.

The Complainant’s understanding was reinforced by a subsequent telephone conversation with the owner, where the Complainant said that he apologised to her about what had happened. She said that the Respondent ignored a written request for a termination letter stating the reason for her dismissal.

The Court finds that considering the above sequence of events, it was reasonable for the Complainant to infer that her employment was terminated by the Respondent on 16 May 2023, following her interactions on that date with the owner and with his wife. Having regard to the uncontested testimony proffered, the Court finds that the Complainant’s employment was terminated by the Respondent on 16 May 2023.

The Complainant had accrued more than one year’s service by the time that her employment terminated on 16 May 2023, she therefore has locus standi to progress her complaint of unfair dismissal under the Act.

In defending a complaint of unfair dismissal, it is for the employer to identify the reason for the dismissal and justify it by showing it was a fair and proportionate response in all the circumstances.

As the Respondent did not attend the hearing, the Court heard no evidence to justify the reasons for the Complainant’s dismissal. No submission was put forward that the Complainant in any way contributed to that dismissal. No submission was made to demonstrate that the Respondent complied with any procedures or provisions of a code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal when it terminated the Complainant’s employment.

Having regard to the uncontested testimony proffered by the Complainant, the Court finds that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from her employment on 16 May 2023, without any explanation as to the reasons for the termination of her employment, or without any recourse to fair procedures. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Given the circumstances of this case, it is clear to the Court that the remediesof reinstatement or reengagement are not appropriate forms of redress, and that an award of compensation is the most appropriate remedy. The purpose of any award of compensation for unfair dismissal is to compensate for financial losses actually incurred because of the dismissal. There is no provision for including an amount intended as a punitive award.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she worked 40 hours per week with the Respondent and that her rate of pay when her employment ended on 16 May 2023 was €600 per week (based on hourly rate of €15.00 per hour). The Court is of the view that the Complainant made reasonable, adequate, and sufficient efforts to mitigate her loss. Her evidence was that she secured alternative employment in mid-June 2023. Accordingly, the Court determines the financial loss of earnings suffered by the Complainant in the 4-week period from the date of her dismissal on 16 May 2023 to the commencement of her new position in mid-June to be approximately €2,400.

In determining the amount of compensation payable, the Court is obliged to consider the extent to which any financial loss incurred was attributable to an act, omission, or conduct, on the part of the employer or on the part of the employee. Having heard the uncontested evidence, the Court finds that the Complainant did not contribute in any way to her dismissal.

An award of compensation must be in an amount that is ‘just and equitable in all the circumstances.” On the facts as presented, and having regard to all the circumstances, the Court determines that the total amount of compensation that is just and equitable in this case is €2,400.

7. Finding

The Court finds, for the reasons stated above, that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

The appeal is well-founded. The Court requires that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,400 being the amount that the Court considers just and equitable in all the circumstances. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
JNF	______________________
4 February 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.