Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Trainee Stylist

A Hairdressing & Beauty Salon

Representatives

None

A Solicitor

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004413

05/06/2025

The Worker was dismissed on 5th June 2025.  He submits his dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair.  The Employer disputes this and submits that the Worker was dismissed for repeated inappropriate conduct, poor performance and timekeeping.

The Worker submits that he was dismissed ten weeks into his employment.  He did not receive any verbal or written warnings, and his dismissal came as a surprise.  He was called into a room and told he was dismissed.  He was not aware his employment was subject to a probationary period as he did not receive a written contract or see the handbook.  The Worker outlined to the hearing the impact of the dismissal on him.

The Worker was dismissed during his probationary period for repeated inappropriate conduct, poor performance and timekeeping.  The Worker was issued with two verbal warnings and a written warning on 15th April 2025 before his dismissal on 5th June 2025.  The Employer outlined the impact of the Worker’s conduct on other staff and the loss of customer’s due to the Worker’s inappropriate commentary in the workplace.  A disciplinary procedure is provided for in the handbook which is available at reception should a Worker wish to see it.  A copy of the procedure was opened to the hearing.

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

The Employer outlined that it received several verbal and written complaints from staff and customers in relation to the Worker and that it had no option but to dismiss the Worker.  The Worker states he was never appraised of these complaints; that he received no warnings whatever in relation to his conduct, performance or timekeeping; and that his dismissal came “totally out of the blue”.  It is not in dispute that the Worker was not given advance warning of the meeting at which he was dismissed, nor was he offered an opportunity to bring a colleague or representative to the meeting.

I note the Employer’s disciplinary procedure consists of four bullet points essentially listing the stages of a disciplinary process i.e., verbal warning, written warnings and dismissal.  There is no reference to the disciplinary procedure/process to be followed either during or after probation.  The Employer confirmed to the hearing that it is not familiar with the requirements of S.I. No. 146/2000 - Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.  S.I. No. 146/2000 sets out the minimum standards that should apply in a disciplinary procedure/process.  There is an obligation on an employer to adhere to fair procedures.  This is particularly so when a matter arises in the employment which might lead to the dismissal of a worker.  It is clear the Employer did not comply with the minimum requirements of S.I. No. 146 in that fair procedure was not followed.  Therefore, the dismissal was unfair.

Having considered both the written and oral submissions of the parties, I recommend the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €1,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Having considered both the written and oral submissions of the parties, I recommend the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €1,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

S.I. No 146/2000.