1. Introduction
The case of Caroline O’Connell v Lionbridge International Unlimited Company (ADJ-00057077), decided in 2025, has attracted particular attention as one of the WRC’s recent high-value unfair dismissal decisions. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant compensation of €142,984 having found, on the basis of conceded liability, that the dismissal was without cause within the meaning of Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015.
The case has subsequently attracted attention in connection with the Labour Court’s appellate consideration of the WRC’s approach to the calculation of remuneration in unfair dismissal cases. The principles emerging from the decision — and from the parallel Labour Court determination in X Internet Unlimited Company — form the modern reference point for the calculation of compensation under Section 7 of the 1977 Act.
2. Legislation and Case Law
Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 establishes the presumption that the dismissal of an employee is unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Where the employer concedes that the dismissal was without cause, the substantive question for the Adjudication Officer is the appropriate redress under Section 7.
Section 7(1) of the Act provides for reinstatement, re-engagement or compensation. Section 7(1)(c)(i) caps the compensatory award at 104 weeks’ remuneration; Section 7(1)(c)(ii) provides for a four-week ceiling where no financial loss has been incurred. The compensation must reflect financial loss attributable to the dismissal and be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.
The Unfair Dismissals (Calculation of Weekly Remuneration) Regulations 1977 (S.I. No. 287 of 1977) set out the method of calculation. The Regulations require the Adjudication Officer to identify a representative weekly figure for remuneration, taking into account fixed pay, variable pay (such as bonuses and commission), and benefits in kind. The treatment of share-based remuneration and of large benefits packages has been the subject of repeated WRC and Labour Court attention in recent years.
Section 7(2) requires the Adjudication Officer to have regard to the extent to which the financial loss was attributable to acts of the employer or the employee; to the measures taken by the employee to mitigate the loss; and to the extent of compliance by each party with relevant procedures. The duty to mitigate is a substantive one (Sheehan v Continental Administration Co. Ltd (UD858/1999)).
3. Decision
The Adjudication Officer accepted the conceded position on liability: the dismissal was without cause within the meaning of Section 6. The Adjudication Officer’s task was therefore confined to the determination of redress.
On the calculation of weekly remuneration, the Adjudication Officer adopted the methodology set out in the 1977 Regulations. The Complainant’s package, including any variable elements, was identified and a representative weekly figure was determined. That figure was then applied to the period of loss, with adjustments for the Complainant’s mitigation efforts and ongoing earnings.
The award of €142,984 reflected the Complainant’s actual financial loss attributable to the dismissal. The award fell below the Section 7(1)(c)(i) ceiling of 104 weeks’ remuneration, but represented a substantial proportion of that ceiling having regard to the period during which the Complainant’s loss was reasonably sustained.
The decision has subsequently been considered in parallel proceedings before the Labour Court, which has addressed the proper interpretation of the 1977 Regulations and the treatment of various remuneration components. The Labour Court’s reasoning has informed the WRC’s ongoing approach to remuneration calculations and is now a key reference point for practitioners.
4. Takeaway
The case underlines the financial exposure that an employer faces in an unfair dismissal complaint at senior or well-remunerated level. With a 104-week ceiling and a Complainant who can demonstrate substantial weekly remuneration and reasonable mitigation, awards of €100,000 or more are now well within reach.
For employers, the practical lesson is the importance of contemporaneous documentation of remuneration. A package presented at recruitment in terms of base salary, bonus structure, share awards and benefits is likely to be assessed by reference to that fuller picture when remuneration is being calculated for the purposes of compensation. An employer hoping to argue for a lower remuneration figure must be in a position to evidence the actual cash value of any variable or non-cash elements during the relevant reference period.
Settlement strategy is also informed by the case. Where an employer is exposed to substantial quantum, an early settlement offer may be considerably less costly than a contested hearing. Practitioners advising employers should obtain a realistic quantum assessment at the earliest stage and engage with settlement discussions accordingly.
For employees, the case is helpful authority for the proposition that the variable and non-cash elements of a remuneration package will be reflected in the weekly remuneration calculation. Practitioners advising employees should ensure that bonus payments, share awards, pension contributions and benefits are documented and presented in the calculation.
5. Further information
This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email enquiries@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.
6. About Crushell & Co
Crushell & Co is a specialist law firm focused on protecting and advancing the rights of employees in Ireland. We offer a nationwide service, advising individuals on a wide range of legal and regulatory issues arising at work, including employment law, employment immigration and workplace accidents and injuries.
We help employees understand their position and options by translating complex legal issues into clear, practical advice. Our approach is tailored to each client, ensuring that our strategy is aligned with their personal and professional circumstances.
Connect: @CrushellLaw or www.wordpress-576593-6594403.cloudwaysapps.com
