Elizabeth Wilson v Edel Ryan t/a Bobbs Hair Salon [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

 
FREE EXCERPT

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Representation:

Claimant: In person

Respondent: Mr. Michael Francis Forde BL, instructed by Mr. Christopher Grogan, C. Grogan & Co., Solicitors, Main Street, Clane, Co. Kildare

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Selection for redundancy - Written warning - Whether advance notice of selection criteria - Whether dismissal unfair - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.

1

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

2

Respondent�€�s Case:

3

The respondent was a hair salon. The owner (ER) owned the business for 20 years. The claimant initially worked a five-day week but this was reduced to a two to three day week due to a downturn in the economy. She was six months short of completing her apprenticeship when she had to be let go.

4

The claimant had not attended some training courses during her tenure, cancelled a class on one occasion and did not furnish any explanations for her absences. ER had a good relationship with the claimant and all employees.

5

Staff were invited to a meeting on 29 June 2009 and the financial situation was explained to them. The claimant was not present at this meeting. There was less income in the business. Profit had dropped from €18,823 to €6388 in one year. Overheads were very high and there was not enough cash to pay the wages. Two staff had to be let go (the claimant being one of them and employee M the other). Selection criteria used were training, expertise, years service and productivity.

6

On 28th August 2009 ER gave the claimant notice of the termination of her employment. The following day the claimant went on a week�€�s holidays. ER told the claimant she would give her work if any work became available. B worked Saturdays and was engaged in sweeping the floor and also shampooing hair. ER did not offer the claimant this type of work, as she would not expect the claimant to return to sweeping the floor and shampooing hair. M was a qualified stylist and was re-employed a week later. He subsequently left his employment in March/April 2010.

7

E a first year full time apprentice continued to work a 40-hour week, five days a week and was paid a higher rate of pay than the claimant.

8

The claimant was furnished with her P45, a reference, and a letter to...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL