THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	679/15

CLAIMANT:			Marta Zelazek

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Blondy’s
				2.	Anna Murawska
				3.	Izabela Tomasik

DECISION

(A)	None of the claimant’s claims against the first-named respondent (“Blondy’s”) is well-founded.  Accordingly, all of those claims are dismissed.

(B)	None of the claimant’s claims against the respondent Ms Anna Murawska (“Ms Murawska”) is well-founded.  Accordingly, all of those claims are dismissed.

(C)	The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim against the respondent Ms Izabella Tomasik (“Ms Tomasik”) is well-founded and it is ordered that Ms Tomasik shall pay to the claimant the sum of £605 in respect of that unfair dismissal.  

(D)	The claimant’s holiday pay claim against Ms Tomasik is well-founded and it is ordered that the third-named respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,009 in respect of holiday pay.

(E)	The claimant withdrew all of her other claims against Ms Tomasik.  Accordingly, all of those other claims are dismissed.  

Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone):	Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
None of the respondents had presented a response within the specified time-limit.  Accordingly, all of those respondents were debarred from participating in the proceedings.

Reasons

1.	I announced my Decision at the end of the hearing.  During the hearing, I gave oral reasons for that Decision.  What follows is by way of summary only.  

2.	I was satisfied that, until the summer of  2014, the claimant  was employed by Ms Murawska in “Blondy’s” hair salon in Portadown.  I was satisfied that, during the summer of 2014, Blondy’s was the subject of a relevant transfer (within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations)  In particular, in the context of the TUPE issue, I noted that, both before and after the putative transfer, a hairdressing service was being operated on the same site, using much of the same hairdressing equipment.  I was satisfied that, immediately prior to the TUPE transfer, the claimant was an employee of Ms Murawska and that, as a result of that transfer, she immediately thereafter became an employee of Ms Tomasik.  I was satisfied that, prior to the termination of the claimant’s maternity leave, she was, in effect, dismissed by Ms Tomasik.  I was satisfied that that dismissal occurred without any compliance with the statutory dismissal procedure and that, for that reason, it was unfair.  I was satisfied that at the time of the dismissal, the claimant had accrued holiday leave to the extent indicated by the holiday pay monetary award which is specified above.

3.	The award in respect of unfair dismissal consists only of the basic award element of the compensation which can be awarded in respect of an unfair dismissal.  (Accordingly, the Recoupment Regulations do not apply).  That basic award is an award of four weeks’ pay.  That award has been made pursuant to paragraph (1A) of Article 154 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.  

4.	In arriving at the foregoing decision, I have taken full account of Ms Tomasik’s letter of 13 August 2015 to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals.

5.	This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

Employment Judge

Date and place of hearing:	1 December 2015, at Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: