Commission finds therapist was unfairly dismissed amid ugly atmosphere in beauty salon
A work row between a beauty salon owner and a beauty therapist tuned ugly culminating in the owner last year sacking her long term employee.
In the case before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), it has found that the beauty therapist - employed at the salon for nine years - was unfairly dismissed by her boss.
WRC Adjudication Officer, Michael McEntee found that no warnings of the dismissal in October 2017 were given and no opportunity to appeal the sacking was offered.
Mr McEntee found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair and that the basic tenets of natural justice in an employment situation were ignored.
However, Mr McEntee has taken the rare step of awarding no compensation to the unfairly dismissed beauty therapist after coming “strongly” to the view that the therapist’s open and acknowledged negative activities over the Spring and Summer of last year ‘contributed 100% to the dismissal”.
In the case, the owner of the beauty salon alleged that the beauty therapist actively spread malicious rumours her and discouraged potential and existing clients from attending for beauty appointments.
The clinic owner also stated that the beauty therapist was in the habit of using her mobile phone to video/voice record her in the course of her business, pointing out that this was a complete breach of privacy.
In his findings, Mr McEntee said the case and the oral hearing into the unfair dismissal claim "was marked by a high degree of animosity between the parties".
At the oral hearing, the sacked beauty therapy claimed that the owner initially offered to sell the salon to her and later withdrew the offer.
The beauty therapist said that she had incurred expenditure in the anticipation of taking over the business.
Mr McEntee said that when the owner withdrew the sale offer, considerable bitterness appeared to have entered the relationship.
Mr McEntee said that the beauty salon owner was entitled to have a change of mind, inconvenient and irritating, as this may have been to the therapist.
In his findings, Mr McEntee said that the dispute between the parties had become quite a well known public issue in the local area.
He said: “Clients were being directly impacted, made uneasy about patronising the salon and the business was not trading as well as before.”
He said that clients were being contacted outside of the business and efforts were made to persuade them from using the services of the beauty salon owner.
A woman who runs an adjoining hair salon gave a written statement to the oral hearing stating that the behaviour of the beauty therapist was clearly intimidatory to the beauty clinic owner.
In response, the beauty therapist vigorously stated that the written evidence from the hair salon owner and other witnesses had been fabricated and were no more than “a tissue of lies” orchestrated by the beauty salon owner in support of her position.
In his findings, Mr McEntee said: “This argument I could not accept -the signed written evidence was very supportive of the Respondent’s position and on balance appeared reasonable.”
The hair salon owner was invited by Mr McEntee to give oral evidence in person at the hearing - however, she declined over a stated fear of physical intimidation by the beauty therapist.
The hair salon owner did offer to meet the Adjudicator privately or contact him by phone but this was rejected by Mr McEntee on the grounds of natural justice.
