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

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
• Date: 06 April 2011

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.

CLAIM OF:	CASE NO.
Elizabeth Wilson, 127 Central Park, Clane, Co Kildare - claimant	MN2396/09 UD2565/09

against

Edel Ryan T/A Bobbs Hair Salon, Main Street, Clane, Co. Kildare - respondent

Edel Ryan, Ballingappa, Clane, Co. Kildare - respondent

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly BL
Members:	Mr. B. Kealy
	Mr C. Ryan

heard this claim at Naas on 6th April 2011.

Facts The claimant was an apprentice stylist and had initially been employed on a 5-day week which was subsequently reduced to a 2/3 day week. The claimant had been informed that she was being let go. It was the claimant�€�s contention that there was enough work to go around and the salon was still busy. It was the claimant�€�s case that her dismissal was unfair and was directly related to a disciplinary incident that had occurred (the claimant had received a written warning in respect of same). On behalf of the respondent it was contended that profits were down, overheads were high and there was not enough cash to pay the wages. Selection criteria that were used related to training, expertise, years service and productivity.

Held by the Tribunal in upholding the claim. The respondent had at no time advised staff about the selection criteria to be used. The criteria used were neither objective nor transparent. The claimant was unfairly dismissed and would be awarded €5,000.

Reporter: R.F.

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...