Gator bait
2024-02-03 07:48:32 UTC
A gossiping Gen Z hairdresser who was constantly using her phone at work
and talking about herself to clients has won a payout after a tribunal
found she was unfairly sacked last year.
Jorja McGennan, a young apprentice who had limited work experience when
she took the job in April 2021, was not offered procedural fairness when
she was let go from Summer Jade Hair Salon in Queensland, Australias
Hervey Bay, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found on Wednesday.
Salon owner Angela Park had previously provided McGennan with multiple
verbal warnings about the quality of her work, her work performance,
client complaints, mobile phone usage and interaction with clients, the
tribunal noted.
Things came to a head last July after McGennan allegedly cost the salon
one of its highest-paying long-term clients because you think you are
right with no ramifications, Park wrote in an official warning letter
shortly before the sacking.
The apprentice had also received five verbal warnings about using her
phone during work hours. Quality of work not up to standard and not
taking ownership of mistakes, always blaming others, the letter
continued.
Clients not wanting to return to the salon because of your attitude and
quality of work and care. Taking sick days without doctor certificates.
Talking about yourself to clients, when the clients are there to relax and
enjoy their experience in the salon (two verbal warnings prior).
McGennan told the commission that in May last year, while she was off
sick, Park had spoken negatively about her to one of the salons long-
term clients.
The salon owner told the commission that she did express disappointment
with McGennans conduct because her actions put pressure on the team and
made clients feel uncomfortable, but it was not negative.
The client mentioned this to McGennan at another appointment the next
month, and the young worker confronted her boss about the conversation.
Park said she thought there had been a misunderstanding and asked
McGennan to explain this to the client and offer an apology for this
issue to be resolved, the tribunal said.
However, the workplace tension caused the client to leave, stating she
felt uncomfortable returning to the salon while [McGennan] was at the
salon after the miscommunication.
After issuing the warning letter, Park told the apprentice she would be
given one week to improve her performance but after some back-and-forth,
that day sent her a fed-up text informing her she was being sacked.
Clearly this is going nowhere, she wrote.
I believe the best thing is for me to give you two weeks notice. Ive
come to this conclusion because the problems arent being rectified. Its
going round and round with no outcome. Your final date will be Saturday,
July 15. Sorry it has come to this.
The pair argued over whether Ms McGennan had resigned or was being sacked.
McGennan later insisted I have not resigned or quit, therefore I can stay
for the rest of my apprenticeship or you can terminate me. I have no
intention to cease my employment this close to my apprenticeship
completion date, she texted.
Park wrote, OK Jorja, I have given you two weeks notice to terminate
your employment.
Ms. McGennan lodged her unfair dismissal application that day.
The matter was heard in October by Fair Work Commission deputy president
Nicholas Lake, who on Wednesday ruled in favor of McGennan.
During the hearing, Park referenced a TikTok clip posted by McGennan on
July 18 which referenced quitting a toxic job, as evidence [she]
resigned.
Although [Ms. McGennan] acknowledged this was an unwise decision, it did
not change the fact that the employment relationship was ended by [Ms.
Park] via text on July 4, 2023, Lake said.
He added that even though McGennan had told her boss she intended to
resign at the end of her apprenticeship in October, this was a heat of
the moment comment and she had been fired.
The commissioner said while Park was justified in being frustrated at
losing a long-term client, the incident could have been better managed.
The nature of the industry requires communication skills with clients who
may raise an array of topics, he said.
A topic raised in this instance was a discussion about a workplace
situation. It is likely that Parks comment to the long-term client on
June 13, 2023, may have been a passing comment which was misinterpreted by
the client. The comments became a misunderstanding through gossip shared
between the [Ms McGennan] and the long-term client. [Ms. McGennan] may not
have had the context when hearing about the comments from the long-term
client which led to tension between [Ms. McGennan] and [Ms. Park].
The tribunal accepted that there was a valid reason for McGennans
dismissal given her overall conduct but said the ultimate reason provided
happy to lose one of Summer Jade Hair Salons top 10 highest paying
clients for 10 years because you think you are right with no
ramifications appeared to be somewhat spiteful and capricious.
Lake said the apprentice had not been provided proper notice and an
opportunity to respond after the formal warning letter before she was
sacked.
I note that [Ms McGennan] could have dealt with the situation more
professionally, he said.
[She] appears to be new to the workforce and there are going to be
situations where it may be disagreeable to her. [Ms McGennan] could have
at least discussed the misunderstanding and ask the long-term client to
come back to the hair salon.
But the commission found that the number of procedural deficiencies
cannot be overlooked and support the finding that [Ms. McGennans]
dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
What should have been done was to conduct a review of [Ms. McGennans]
performance on July 11, 2023, and give [her] a cooling-off period in
addressing the long-term client, instead of deciding to dismiss her on the
day she received the written notice, Lake said.
As a result, I am satisfied that [Ms McGennan] was unfairly dismissed
under s.394 of the Act and is entitled to a remedy under this provision.
A hearing will be conducted at a later date to determine an appropriate
remedy.
Park declined to comment when reached by phone on Thursday.
McGennan has been contacted for comment.
https://nypost.com/2024/02/01/lifestyle/gossiping-gen-z-hairdresser-
warned-5-times-about-using-phone-at-work-and-posted-toxic-job-tiktok-wins-
payout/
and talking about herself to clients has won a payout after a tribunal
found she was unfairly sacked last year.
Jorja McGennan, a young apprentice who had limited work experience when
she took the job in April 2021, was not offered procedural fairness when
she was let go from Summer Jade Hair Salon in Queensland, Australias
Hervey Bay, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found on Wednesday.
Salon owner Angela Park had previously provided McGennan with multiple
verbal warnings about the quality of her work, her work performance,
client complaints, mobile phone usage and interaction with clients, the
tribunal noted.
Things came to a head last July after McGennan allegedly cost the salon
one of its highest-paying long-term clients because you think you are
right with no ramifications, Park wrote in an official warning letter
shortly before the sacking.
The apprentice had also received five verbal warnings about using her
phone during work hours. Quality of work not up to standard and not
taking ownership of mistakes, always blaming others, the letter
continued.
Clients not wanting to return to the salon because of your attitude and
quality of work and care. Taking sick days without doctor certificates.
Talking about yourself to clients, when the clients are there to relax and
enjoy their experience in the salon (two verbal warnings prior).
McGennan told the commission that in May last year, while she was off
sick, Park had spoken negatively about her to one of the salons long-
term clients.
The salon owner told the commission that she did express disappointment
with McGennans conduct because her actions put pressure on the team and
made clients feel uncomfortable, but it was not negative.
The client mentioned this to McGennan at another appointment the next
month, and the young worker confronted her boss about the conversation.
Park said she thought there had been a misunderstanding and asked
McGennan to explain this to the client and offer an apology for this
issue to be resolved, the tribunal said.
However, the workplace tension caused the client to leave, stating she
felt uncomfortable returning to the salon while [McGennan] was at the
salon after the miscommunication.
After issuing the warning letter, Park told the apprentice she would be
given one week to improve her performance but after some back-and-forth,
that day sent her a fed-up text informing her she was being sacked.
Clearly this is going nowhere, she wrote.
I believe the best thing is for me to give you two weeks notice. Ive
come to this conclusion because the problems arent being rectified. Its
going round and round with no outcome. Your final date will be Saturday,
July 15. Sorry it has come to this.
The pair argued over whether Ms McGennan had resigned or was being sacked.
McGennan later insisted I have not resigned or quit, therefore I can stay
for the rest of my apprenticeship or you can terminate me. I have no
intention to cease my employment this close to my apprenticeship
completion date, she texted.
Park wrote, OK Jorja, I have given you two weeks notice to terminate
your employment.
Ms. McGennan lodged her unfair dismissal application that day.
The matter was heard in October by Fair Work Commission deputy president
Nicholas Lake, who on Wednesday ruled in favor of McGennan.
During the hearing, Park referenced a TikTok clip posted by McGennan on
July 18 which referenced quitting a toxic job, as evidence [she]
resigned.
Although [Ms. McGennan] acknowledged this was an unwise decision, it did
not change the fact that the employment relationship was ended by [Ms.
Park] via text on July 4, 2023, Lake said.
He added that even though McGennan had told her boss she intended to
resign at the end of her apprenticeship in October, this was a heat of
the moment comment and she had been fired.
The commissioner said while Park was justified in being frustrated at
losing a long-term client, the incident could have been better managed.
The nature of the industry requires communication skills with clients who
may raise an array of topics, he said.
A topic raised in this instance was a discussion about a workplace
situation. It is likely that Parks comment to the long-term client on
June 13, 2023, may have been a passing comment which was misinterpreted by
the client. The comments became a misunderstanding through gossip shared
between the [Ms McGennan] and the long-term client. [Ms. McGennan] may not
have had the context when hearing about the comments from the long-term
client which led to tension between [Ms. McGennan] and [Ms. Park].
The tribunal accepted that there was a valid reason for McGennans
dismissal given her overall conduct but said the ultimate reason provided
happy to lose one of Summer Jade Hair Salons top 10 highest paying
clients for 10 years because you think you are right with no
ramifications appeared to be somewhat spiteful and capricious.
Lake said the apprentice had not been provided proper notice and an
opportunity to respond after the formal warning letter before she was
sacked.
I note that [Ms McGennan] could have dealt with the situation more
professionally, he said.
[She] appears to be new to the workforce and there are going to be
situations where it may be disagreeable to her. [Ms McGennan] could have
at least discussed the misunderstanding and ask the long-term client to
come back to the hair salon.
But the commission found that the number of procedural deficiencies
cannot be overlooked and support the finding that [Ms. McGennans]
dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
What should have been done was to conduct a review of [Ms. McGennans]
performance on July 11, 2023, and give [her] a cooling-off period in
addressing the long-term client, instead of deciding to dismiss her on the
day she received the written notice, Lake said.
As a result, I am satisfied that [Ms McGennan] was unfairly dismissed
under s.394 of the Act and is entitled to a remedy under this provision.
A hearing will be conducted at a later date to determine an appropriate
remedy.
Park declined to comment when reached by phone on Thursday.
McGennan has been contacted for comment.
https://nypost.com/2024/02/01/lifestyle/gossiping-gen-z-hairdresser-
warned-5-times-about-using-phone-at-work-and-posted-toxic-job-tiktok-wins-
payout/