Beauty salon discriminated against Travellers, WRC rules
The Workplace Relations Commission has upheld complaints under the Equal Status Act 2000 by the woman and her two daughters against the unidentified beauty salon in a set of decisions published today.
In her evidence to the tribunal, Ms A said she and her daughters went to the salon as a "birthday treat" for one of the girls, and on arrival was informed by a hairdresser that the business would "only accept cash".
Upon inquiring about the full cost, the owner called Ms A to the counter and showed her a sum on a calculator, the complainant said. She said that she asked for an itemised breakdown of the figure, upon which the owner became "infuriated".
Ms A said the owner struck the counter with two hands and said "something to the effect" of: "Do you want it for free? Are you trying to rob me?"
The complainant added that the owner also threatened to call the police, and continued to be "rude and aggressive" to the point that one of her daughters became upset and suggested that they leave.
Ms A said it was made clear she would have to pay up front for all the procedures, and that one of the hairdressers also suggested she "run across the road to the ATM".
She said that before she went out, the hairdresser told her the reason the owner had behaved as she had was because a group of girls had been in the week before and failed to pay for procedures.
The hairdresser said this group were "also Travellers", the complainant said in her evidence.
Ms A said that having paid up front as requested, other customers who had been in line behind her and her family were served ahead of her.
It was "so obvious" that this was happening, the complainant said, that another customer, a member of the settled community, noticed one of her daughters was "visibly upset" and offered to let the girl go ahead of her.
"Other customers who were not members of the Traveller community were not asked to pay for their treatments up front," the complainant told the hearing, adding that she knew because she had asked two other customers and they had confirmed this to her.
Sinead Lucey, managing solicitor at the Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC), submitted that the insistence on cash up front, the fact that Ms A was "shouted at", and that Ms A and her daughters were left to queue longer all amounted to less favourable treatment of her clients as members of the Travelling community.
Adjudication officer Orla Jones noted the failure of the business's management to attend a hearing on the case which was held in Dublin on 24 February this year.
In her decision, Ms Jones wrote that she was satisfied Ms A and her daughters were subjected to less favourite treatment while being served at the salon on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller Community.
She upheld the three complaints, awarding Ms A, Ms M and Ms K compensation of €500 each, totalling €1,500.
Ms Jones anonymised all three of her decisions on the cases, also redacting the name of the business, in order to protect identities of the two underage complainants.
In a press statement circulated today by FLAC, Ms A welcomed the WRC decision and offered thanks to the the non-profit legal support body, without which she said she could not have pursued the matter.
Ms A said: "We did not take these cases for money… As a mother, I want my girls to know that people cannot and should not treat them badly because they come from the Traveller community."
Eilis Barry, FLAC Chief Executive, said: "The family showed great bravery and resilience in taking these complaints. Unfortunately, there is no legal aid for victims of discrimination who take cases to the WRC. This means it is impossible for many people to challenge discrimination and to access compensation for its effects."
Ms Barry called for the removal of the "blanket ban on legal aid for cases heard by tribunals like the WRC" and more support for legal services for the Travelling Community and "other groups with high levels of legal need".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Man called 'dog' by boss awarded €8,000 in unpaid wages at WRC
A worker who said his ex-boss slashed his rostered hours down to just one day a week and got "abusive" with him at a meeting has won nearly €8,000 in unpaid wages and compensation. Craig O'Brien told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that businessman Zemari Jalilzad "berated" him in front of multiple colleagues at a meeting last September when he objected to the cut in hours, telling him: "Who are you? You are nothing, you are a dog." The company then failed to send him his wages for the month of September on payday the following week, he said The employment tribunal has found Mr Jalilzad's wholesaling company, Jalilzad Electronics Ltd, in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 on foot of complaints by Mr O'Brien, in a decision published today. After nobody representing the company dialled in for scheduled hearings by videoconference in May and July this year, the WRC heard the complaints in the absence of the respondent. Mr O'Brien, who was represented by David Lane of McGroddy Brennan Solicitors in the case, had "many years' experience in the retail and wholesale trade", in particular with household products, toys and seasonal stock, the tribunal noted. The complainant told the tribunal he met Mr Jalilzad when the businessman came to buy up stock during the liquidation of his former employer. Mr Jalilzad had asked him at that stage to join him in establishing his business, he said. Employer 'upset' and 'losing faith' He prepared sales forecasts and a business plan, which Mr Jalilzad agreed to finance, he said. He then travelled to China on behalf of Mr Jalilzad to visit manufacturers of Halloween-related products with a view to supplying these to the Irish retail trade, he said. In May 2024, he joined the company as general manager, on a salary of €50,000 per annum, he said. He proceeded to set up a showroom in Dundalk for retailers to see stock, hired a website administrator, prepared a list of suppliers, and managed to pre-sell stock worth €150,000 to shops, he said. Mr O'Brien said it became clear that "things wouldn't work out" as Mr Jalilzad "insisted" on using a different supplier and "refused to budge" on this. The complainant said the said the product range, price and quality from this supplier "wasn't what customers wanted" and "not what he built the [sales] forecast around". However, Mr Jalilzad "refused to pay deposits to the factories" and the stock Mr O'Brien had pre-sold was never delivered, leaving him to explain matters to the customers, the complainant said. Mr O'Brien said his employer was "upset" about the failing sales figures and customers were "losing faith". He was "constantly on the road trying to fix problems" in July and August 2024 arising from "communications issues with order picking", he said. He told the tribunal he wrote to his employer outlining the problems with the business on 15 September last year, also expressing concerns about the company's finances. The complainant alleged that when he raised a concern on 25 September that the website administrator hadn't been paid, Mr Jalilzad "shouted abuse" at him over the phone. 'You are nothing, you are a dog' On 30 September, Mr O'Brien said he met with the website administrator, Mr Jalilzad, an associate named Imam Jalil, and the businessman's brother in an attempt to "resolve" matters. He said there was a "cool start" to the meeting before Mr Jalilzad "became abusive" and told him that with immediate effect he was "only required to work one day a week". Mr O'Brien said he challenged Mr Jalilzad's right to change his terms of employment "without discussion", upon which Mr Jalilzad "berated" him and said: "Who are you? You are nothing, you are a dog." The businessman sent him a letter later that day cutting his working week from five days to one day a week as a "temporary change". Mr O'Brien's payslip for September arrived on 1 October, recording gross wages of €4,166.66, but "no money was transferred", Mr O'Brien told the WRC. When he wrote looking for the wages, Mr Jalil replied by email stating: "Please let us know if you are available to work one day a week," the tribunal was told. Mr O'Brien said he heard nothing from the firm about what duties he was to perform. Wages 'unlawfully deducted' Mr O'Brien said his employment ended on 31 October when it "became clear" the managing director wasn't going to pay his wages or have "any contact" with him. In her decision, adjudicator Catherine Byrne said it was "entirely unacceptable" that the company had failed to consult Mr O'Brien about the cut to his hours and decided on it without his agreement, the company was not in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in that regard. She also found there was "no requirement" for pay in lieu of notice in circumstances where the complainant – who had just six months' service at the time - considered himself to have been "constructively dismissed" due to his employer's conduct. However, Ms Byrne ruled that the company was nevertheless liable for Mr O'Brien's wages for both September and October 2024, and ordered it to pay him €3,078.86 in tax-free compensation for both months, based on the net value of his full-time wages for the period. The wages had been "unlawfully deducted" in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, she ruled. She also found Mr O'Brien had been deprived of eight days' accrued annual leave in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, awarding him a further €1,731.60 in compensation.
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Beauty salon ordered to pay €1,500 to Traveller family
A beauty salon has been ordered to pay €1,500 in compensation to a Traveller family in a discrimination case before the Workplace Relations Commission. When a mother and two daughters went to the salon for a 'birthday treat' for one of them, the WRC heard they were asked to pay in advance for their treatments when other customers didn't have to, were shouted at by the manager of the salon, and left to queue for longer than non-Traveller customers. 'We did not take these cases for money, we wanted to challenge the unfair way we were treated,' the mother said. 'As a mother, I want my girls to know that people cannot and should not treat them badly because they come from the Traveller community.' In a summary of the case, the WRC said that the beauty salon against which the allegations had been made did not have any representatives at the hearing. A WRC inspector said they had been notified in advance and did not provide any reason or explanation for not attending. As part of the hearing, it was alleged that when the mother was called up to the desk and shown the full amount to pay, the manager/owner became 'infuriated' when asked for an itemised breakdown of the costs. It was alleged the manager/owner 'hit the counter with her two hands saying something to the effect 'do you want it for free' and a further 'are you trying to rob me', the inspector said. Furthermore, it was alleged that another hairdresser told the mother that the reason for this behaviour was a group of girls who had not paid for treatments the previous week were 'also Travellers'. As minors were involved in the case, all parties were anonymised. Each of them were awarded €500. The trio were represented by Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) at the WRC hearing. Its chief executive Eilis Barry said that the family showed 'great bravery and resilience in taking these complaints'. 'These decisions are a stark reminder of the barriers and discrimination which Travellers constantly face in accessing services that the general population take for granted,' she said. Ms Barry added that currently there is no legal aid for those who takes to the WRC which makes it impossible for many to challenge discrimination and access compensation for its effects.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Beauty salon discriminated against Travellers, WRC rules
A beauty salon has been ordered to pay a Traveller woman and her daughters €500 each in compensation for discrimination after insisting they pay cash up front for their beauty treatments. The Workplace Relations Commission has upheld complaints under the Equal Status Act 2000 by the woman and her two daughters against the unidentified beauty salon in a set of decisions published today. In her evidence to the tribunal, Ms A said she and her daughters went to the salon as a "birthday treat" for one of the girls, and on arrival was informed by a hairdresser that the business would "only accept cash". Upon inquiring about the full cost, the owner called Ms A to the counter and showed her a sum on a calculator, the complainant said. She said that she asked for an itemised breakdown of the figure, upon which the owner became "infuriated". Ms A said the owner struck the counter with two hands and said "something to the effect" of: "Do you want it for free? Are you trying to rob me?" The complainant added that the owner also threatened to call the police, and continued to be "rude and aggressive" to the point that one of her daughters became upset and suggested that they leave. Ms A said it was made clear she would have to pay up front for all the procedures, and that one of the hairdressers also suggested she "run across the road to the ATM". She said that before she went out, the hairdresser told her the reason the owner had behaved as she had was because a group of girls had been in the week before and failed to pay for procedures. The hairdresser said this group were "also Travellers", the complainant said in her evidence. Ms A said that having paid up front as requested, other customers who had been in line behind her and her family were served ahead of her. It was "so obvious" that this was happening, the complainant said, that another customer, a member of the settled community, noticed one of her daughters was "visibly upset" and offered to let the girl go ahead of her. "Other customers who were not members of the Traveller community were not asked to pay for their treatments up front," the complainant told the hearing, adding that she knew because she had asked two other customers and they had confirmed this to her. Sinead Lucey, managing solicitor at the Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC), submitted that the insistence on cash up front, the fact that Ms A was "shouted at", and that Ms A and her daughters were left to queue longer all amounted to less favourable treatment of her clients as members of the Travelling community. Adjudication officer Orla Jones noted the failure of the business's management to attend a hearing on the case which was held in Dublin on 24 February this year. In her decision, Ms Jones wrote that she was satisfied Ms A and her daughters were subjected to less favourite treatment while being served at the salon on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller Community. She upheld the three complaints, awarding Ms A, Ms M and Ms K compensation of €500 each, totalling €1,500. Ms Jones anonymised all three of her decisions on the cases, also redacting the name of the business, in order to protect identities of the two underage complainants. In a press statement circulated today by FLAC, Ms A welcomed the WRC decision and offered thanks to the the non-profit legal support body, without which she said she could not have pursued the matter. Ms A said: "We did not take these cases for money… As a mother, I want my girls to know that people cannot and should not treat them badly because they come from the Traveller community." Eilis Barry, FLAC Chief Executive, said: "The family showed great bravery and resilience in taking these complaints. Unfortunately, there is no legal aid for victims of discrimination who take cases to the WRC. This means it is impossible for many people to challenge discrimination and to access compensation for its effects." Ms Barry called for the removal of the "blanket ban on legal aid for cases heard by tribunals like the WRC" and more support for legal services for the Travelling Community and "other groups with high levels of legal need".
