Woman who alleges husband consistently bullied her fails in discrimination action against his firm
A beauty therapy coach has failed in her discrimination action against her husband’s beauty therapy training business.
In the case, the beauty therapy coach claimed that she was discriminated as she was the owner’s wife and that no other member of staff was treated in the manner in which she was.
According to the beauty therapist coach’s evidence at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), from the commencement of his engagement with the business, the woman’s husband acted in a bullying manner which led to continued stress for her.
In support of her allegations, the beauty therapist coach - who established the business in the 1990s - said that her husband would not pay her for work and when she asked for a small wage he refused to agree.
She claimed that she was consistently put down and her views were not regarded as valid and she was not allowed to withdraw money from the business.
In evidence, the woman said that, despite it being her business, things eventually got so bad that she resigned from the business in March 2015.
The woman stated that she had been consistently bullied despite her 25 years’ experience and despite the fact that she was the most valuable tutor on the team.
The beauty therapist coach told the WRC that, due to the unacceptable treatment she was receiving, she resigned from the business which she loved.
The therapist coach listed a series of allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards her by husband, which included: use of abusive and aggressive behaviour, shouting, ignoring her concerns and undermining her by not allowing her to make decisions in her own business.
The beauty therapy coach stated that raising issues with her husband would frequently end in a row.
In his findings, WRC Adjudication Officer, Ray Flaherty said that it appears from the evidence presented that the business relationship between the parties did not go well and that this may have reflected parallel difficulties they were experiencing in their personal relationship.
However, Mr Flaherty has thrown out the woman’s claim after finding that she was not an employee of the company and that since 2015 any interaction with the firm was as a contractor.
Mr Flaherty stated that as a consequence the complainant has no protection under the Employment Equality legislation.
Mr Flaherty said that he agreed with the preliminary point made by the woman’s husband that his wife was not an employee but a contractor after her resignation.
The husband told the WRC that his wife left the firm in March of her own accord and at the time of resignation was on good working terms with the company.
The husband provided documentary evidence in support of this. The man said all invoices submitted by his wife while acting as a contractor were paid in full in a timely manner.
The husband also said that in the period from her resignation in March 2015, through to 2017, his wife operated her own coaching business.
In his findings, Mr Flaherty said: “Any case the Complainant might have had that she was an employee ceased in March 2015 when she resigned from the company. Consequently, any entitlement to protection under the Employment Equality legislation would also have ceased at that point in time.”
Mr Flaherty stated that as he has found in favour of the husband on the preliminary point, there is no requirement to proceed to consider the substantive element of the complainant’s complaint.
