Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Beauty Therapist

A  Beauty Therapy Salon

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004282

12/05/2025

The complainant commenced employment with the beauty therapy salon in August 2024 and remained employed until her dismissal on May 1st, 2025. She says her dismissal was unfair because no fair procedures were followed nor was she ever informed that her employment was at risk.

The complainant submitted that there had been no disciplinary process, or warnings, or any opportunity to respond to concerns allegedly held about her performance or conduct before her dismissal.

During her employment, she carried out beauty therapy treatments, developed a regular client base, and took on clients from therapists who had previously left the salon. Shortly before her dismissal, she had been booked onto training courses scheduled for the 11th and 12th of August 2025. This gave her no indication that her employment was in jeopardy or that concerns existed regarding her suitability for continued employment.

There was a pattern of  unacceptable treatment during her employment.  She and her  colleagues were regularly expected to attend work before their scheduled starting times without payment. On December 4th, and February 13th, messages were sent to staff group requesting that they attend work thirty minutes early without additional payment. This was not an isolated occurrence

Although her official start time was 10:00 a.m., staff were generally expected to arrive approximately ten minutes early each day, or in some cases, thirty minutes early to prepare for work, and were not paid for this time. Despite raising this on numerous occasions the respondent persisted with it

Her one-hour lunch break was frequently scheduled very early in the day, often at 11:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m., despite regularly working until 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. and she was not permitted to split her break during longer working days. On 25th September, while on an unpaid lunch break, she received messages asking whether she would take a late-arriving client and return early from her break to do a treatment on a client who was late/no show, then was let on an earlier lunch break.

She again brought it up to no avail and was often working to 20.00.

She was not permitted to split her lunch break or take an additional break later in the day, despite the length of the working hours involved. These practices did not adequately provide for rest breaks during long working days and contributed to an unreasonable working environment.

In October 2024, she requested reduced hours for a short period to assist with caring responsibilities following a family emergency and this was agreed. However, on October 24th,, when she had no clients booked between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and asked if she could complete salon duties and leave one hour early because her mother remained unwell, she was criticised and told that she "only ever wanted to leave early."

She observed other staff members being permitted to leave early when business was quiet and felt she was treated differently.

At the commencement of her employment in August 2024, she was not provided with a written statutory statement of her terms of employment. It was only on November 23rd, 2024, several months after she had started working, that she was asked to provide personal details for the purpose of preparing the statement.

On January 24th, 2025, during a Red Weather Warning, the salon remained open later than usual. She received repeated communications asking whether she would be attending work, including while the warning remained in effect.

Throughout her employment, comments were regularly made to the effect that clients should not be cancelled and that management would attend work while sick. This created pressure on staff to attend work even when unwell. On 10 April 2025, following a tooth extraction the previous evening, she attended work feeling extremely unwell and requested permission to leave. She was informed that the salon was too busy and remained at work from approximately 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.

There were delays in payment of wages on a number of occasions. On 18 April 2025, she had not received payment for the previous week's work by approximately 8:00 p.m. Pay slips were provided in various formats, including paper copies and WhatsApp messages. Many were incomplete, difficult to read, or appeared to contain technical errors.

Reduction of Hours and Exclusion Prior to Dismissal

In March 2025 her working hours were reduced and she increasingly felt excluded within the workplace. On 13 March, a message was sent to the work group at approximately 7:49 p.m. advising of changes to working hours. As she had already finished work, she did not see the message.

She attended work the following morning at 10:00 a.m. and was informed that she was not required until 2:00 p.m. No telephone call had been made to notify her of this significant reduction. When she raised concerns, she was told that staff would be contacted directly in the future. However, the same situation occurred again. She could not afford to lose the hours involved.

On 18 March, her additional hours were reduced while other therapists retained their hours. she felt she was being treated differently from colleagues. On 20 March, she noticed that she had very few bookings while other therapists remained busy. She became concerned that clients were being directed away from her and that she was being pushed out of the business. She was also spoken to about engaging in casual conversation with clients and told to focus instead on product sales. She was unaware of any similar concerns being raised with other staff members.

Throughout her employment, staff members regularly communicated in a language that she did not understand. She raised concerns on multiple occasions because this left her feeling isolated and excluded. During a meeting on April 10th,  2025, she explained that she did not feel part of the team and that colleagues did not speak to her. She was told that she should do more for the other staff members, including helping them clean up.

She also experienced criticism in front of colleagues regarding matters such as her appearance, including comments that she did not wear enough makeup and that her work uniform appeared dirty during the course of the working day. On April 30th,  2025, while carrying out a treatment on a client, she was reprimanded in front of the client by the owner of  the business regarding a tint brush that had been left on a table. This was embarrassing and made her uncomfortable.

Annual Leave issues

The complainant had annual leave approved for February 14th and 15th, 2025. Following a family bereavement, she requested on January 22nd, that her leave dates be amended to facilitate attendance at a funeral which on that date as there were clients already booked in. She was asked to work till at least 1pm that day which she could not do as the funeral was in another county. This was agreed.

Subsequently, concerns were raised regarding leave arrangements, and she was blamed when multiple staff members had leave approved for the same day. She was asked to work despite having arranged leave for the funeral.

Dismissal on May 1st,  2025

On May 1st, 2025, she arrived at work at approximately 9:50 a.m. When checking the booking system, she noticed that she had been marked as being on holiday for an upcoming period despite still having clients booked that day. she felt that colleagues were behaving unusually and that others may have been aware of a decision affecting her employment before she was informed.

The owner asked whether she wished to speak immediately or after her clients. She indicated that she wished to speak immediately due to anxiety and concern about the situation. she was informed that her client was the priority and that the discussion would take place later.

She therefore remained at work and completed two client treatments while distressed and uncertain about her future employment. At approximately 12:30 p.m., after both clients had been completed, she was brought into a room with the owner and another colleague acting as a witness.

She was informed that her employment was being terminated. she was told that she had "never been part of the team" and that complaints had been made regarding her services. This was the first occasion on which any complaints concerning her services had been mentioned to her.

At no stage prior to her dismissal was she informed that her employment was at risk; invited to a disciplinary meeting; provided with details of alleged complaints;  given an opportunity to respond to allegations;  issued with verbal or written warnings; placed on a performance improvement plan;  she advised that dismissal was being considered;  offered any appeal process.

She  was therefore denied any meaningful opportunity to understand, challenge, or address the concerns that were subsequently relied upon when dismissing her.

The dismissal came as a complete shock. Given that she had received no warnings and had recently been scheduled for further training, she had no reason to believe that her employment was in jeopardy. The circumstances surrounding her treatment during employment and the manner of her dismissal had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing.

Her dismissal was unfair. she believe there was a pattern of treatment throughout her employment which culminated in her dismissal without fair procedures being followed. She  was given no warning, no opportunity to address concerns, and no opportunity to improve. she was not afforded the protections that would ordinarily apply before a decision to terminate employment is made.

As a result of these circumstances, she had suffered a loss of earning and was placed under financial and emotional strain. The process of seeking new employment, attending multiple interviews and dealing with the uncertainty of her future at the time and that it had a substantial impact on her mental health and overall wellbeing.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. It had not objected to the hearing proceeding. She did not provide any reasons for her non-attendance

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The respondent raised no objection to the hearing under the Industrial Relations Act and at one stage solicitors acting for the respondent advised that they were on record.

However, nothing further was heard from either the solicitor or the respondent and so the hearing proceeded.

The complainant provided a harrowing oral account of her period of employment with the ‘beauty therapy’ business which largely followed the lines of her (edited) written submission set out above. She was a very credible witness who clearly took a very professional approach to her job. The quality of her submission above also illustrates this.

There are numerous serious breaches of employment statutes illustrated above; of the Payment of Wages Act, The Organisation of Working Time Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act to name the most obvious ones.

Sadly for her, the complainant has not made complaints under these Acts, presumably focusing on the unfair termination of her employment which, because of her short service could only be pursued under this Act and subject to its limitations.

The work regime she described in her presentation to the hearing was atrocious. It can generally be characterised as one of utter disrespect for the complainant’s rights, and those of her co-workers,  whether the general right to fair and decent treatment or statutory rights.

This extended from the requirement that she work unpaid for an hour or longer every week, to arbitrary changes in her work arrangements and the ludicrous lunch break arrangements, to the denial of proper rest breaks,  and finally to the failure to pay her properly and provide her with adequate pay slips.

There were other complaints that demonstrated a lack of compassion and understanding for health or personal difficulties, and while there may have been some business reasons for these, it seems more likely that they were part of an authoritarian culture of exploitation operated by the respondent.

And it culminated in the grossly unfair manner in which the complainant’s employment was terminated in which any element of fairness was completely absent.

While I am obliged to anonymise this recommendation the respondent will receive a copy, and she would do well to take very serious note of its contents. In my recommendation I strongly urge her to familiarise herself with her obligations as an employer and take urgent HR advice about compliance with the requirements of Irish employment law and HR best practice.

Otherwise, she is at risk of exposing herself to more serious sanctions should a future complainant be minded to challenge her cavalier approach to compliance with employment law, or should the WRC Inspection service turn up at her door.

My recommendations are below.

Employment law compliance, fair procedure