BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Ashley v Male & Female Room Hairsalon [2011] NIIT 01462_11IT (19 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01462_11IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 1462_11IT, [2011] NIIT 01462_11IT |
||
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1462/11
CLAIMANT: Rhoda Ashley
RESPONDENT: Male & Female Room Hairsalon
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim of breach of contract is not made out. The claim is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mrs M Watson
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr N Richards, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by McCartan Turkington Breen, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr T Anderson of O’Reilly Stewart, Solicitors.
Issue for determination
1. Was there a contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent? If so, what were its terms?
Contentions of the parties
2. The claimant claimed that she was offered employment as a hairdresser by Mrs Alexander at her salon in Hollywood. She was to work on Saturdays to cover a maternity leave for a period of 12 months with the possibility of further hours or that the post could be made permanent.
3. The respondent contended that the claimant was offered a trial period of work on 4 Saturdays so that her capability to provide cover for a stylist on maternity leave might be assessed.
Findings of fact
4. The claimant has been living in Northern Ireland for over 3 years in Palace Barracks at Hollywood. She has been self employed as a hairdresser, styling the hair of other servicemen’s wives in their homes. She has been a hairdresser for 16 years but has not worked in a salon since she has been in Northern Ireland.
5. The claimant knew of the respondent’s salon as it was near her home and she was aware that the salon often had vacancies for staff. She checked the JobsNI website and noted a vacancy for a 12 month maternity cover had been there for a while.
6. When she telephoned to ask if the vacancy was still available, she was told that another stylist had been appointed but that there was a vacancy for Saturdays. An interview was arranged for Friday, 18 February 2011.
7. At the interview with Mrs Alexander, the claimant expressed concerns she had relating to the speed and quality of her work as she had no recent salon experience and her unfamiliarity with the brand of hair colourant used in the salon.
8. The claimant did not provide any CV or references at the interview.
9. The claimant began working at the salon on Saturday, 26 February 2011 and was paid £45.50 cash for 6.5 hours. She was not provided with any documentation relating to the job.
10. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether the claimant had worked 4 or 5 Saturdays. Without going into the detail of the differing versions, suffice to say that I found the respondent’s version of the events of 12 March to be more likely to be true than that of the claimant. I find that the claimant worked on 4 Saturdays between 26 February 2011 and 26 March 2011.
11. The claimant was in England at the end of March. On or around 5 April 2011, the claimant called to the salon as Mrs Alexander had asked her to contact her. The claimant was informed that there was no need for her at the salon for the time being and that Mrs Alexander would ring when she wanted the claimant to return.
12. On 22 June 2011, over 10 weeks later, the claimant met another service wife, Mrs Jackson-Smith who accused the claimant of having told lies about being on a break from working at the salon. Mrs Jackson-Smith told the claimant that Sharon, a mutual friend of theirs from Palace Barracks, had started work at the salon.
13. The claimant was ‘mortified’ at being called a liar so sent a text message to Mrs Alexander to ask if this was true. The reply stated that Mrs Alexander did not want to hurt the claimant’s feelings but that there had been complaints about the claimant’s work. The claimant asked why she had not been told this before but the respondent replied that she had not employed the claimant and that she had been “on a trial”.
14. The claimant was subsequently very upset as she became a ‘hot topic’ of gossip in the Palace Barracks community. She explained that she did not want to leave the house for some time.
Determination
15. On behalf of the claimant, Mr Richards submitted that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed from her employment giving rise to the claim of breach of contract. I have given careful consideration to the oral evidence of both witnesses in this case and have also read through Harvey 1 at section A11 as he suggested. I have determined that there was no contract of employment between the parties.
16. As owner of the salon, Mrs Alexander needed to find a stylist to look after Sami-Jo’s regular customers in her absence and maintain her standards. She had appointed another stylist to work during the week but still had to fill Saturdays when contacted by the claimant. She had no knowledge of the claimant’s abilities as a hairdresser and was not given any references from other salons where the claimant had worked or any indication of any qualifications she held. The salon had been in operation for some 4 years, so the respondent would have built a reputation in the town that had to be maintained. In such circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Mrs Alexander, or indeed any salon owner, would offer a 12 month contract to anyone without assessing their skills and suitability, much less someone who had no salon experience for over 3 years. My determination is that there was no contract of employment offered to the claimant by the respondent but rather she was asked to demonstrate her suitability by undertaking the duties of the post on 4 occasions before any such offer could be made.
17. In addition, the claimant was told not to come to work at the beginning of April. If she had been offered a 12 month contract, I would have expected her to have asked when she should return after a few weeks, not nearly 3 months later. She is also due to leave Northern Ireland at the end of the year so would have been unable to accept a 12 month contract, much less a permanent one, contrary to her contentions.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 22 September 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
