1. Introduction
The case of Tony Molloy v Kaefer Limited (ADJ-00053834), considered by the WRC in early 2026, addresses a perennially difficult question for contractor and service-provider employers: what does an employer do when its client demands that a particular employee be removed from a site, and to what extent can client pressure justify a dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015?
The case illustrates the limits of “other substantial grounds” as a defence under Section 6(1) of the 1977 Act, and the procedural obligations that fall on the employer even where the underlying decision is being driven by external commercial pressure. The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed.
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. Section 6(4) sets out specific grounds that may, prima facie, constitute substantial grounds: capability, competence, qualifications, conduct, redundancy, contravention of a statutory requirement, and “other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”.
The “other substantial grounds” limb has been considered in a long line of authorities. The EAT in Burke v M.A.S. Service Stations Ltd (UD175/1989) and the High Court in Killian v Wally Murphy Distributors Ltd (1988) established that pressure from a third party may, in principle, amount to a substantial ground, but that the employer must investigate the basis of the third-party pressure and consider whether reasonable alternatives to dismissal are available.
The leading more recent authority is the EAT decision in Henderson v Connect Group Ltd (UD1601/2005) and the Labour Court determination in Stobart (Ireland) Driver Services Ltd v Carroll (UDD1737), each confirming that an employer cannot simply act on the client’s instruction. The employer must conduct its own investigation, give the employee an opportunity to respond, consider redeployment to other sites or roles, and act reasonably in all the circumstances.
The Section 6(7) test — reasonableness of the employer’s conduct in relation to the dismissal — is the operative standard. An employer who simply implements the client’s instruction, without independent assessment or any consideration of alternatives, will, in general, be found to have acted unreasonably and to have unfairly dismissed the employee.
3. Decision
The Adjudication Officer in Tony Molloy v Kaefer Limited (ADJ-00053834) considered the circumstances in which the client had requested the Complainant’s removal from site and the steps the Respondent had taken in response. The Adjudication Officer applied the established framework: had the Respondent investigated the basis of the client’s request; had the Complainant been given an opportunity to respond; had the Respondent considered redeployment to alternative sites or roles; had the Respondent acted reasonably in all the circumstances?
On the facts, the Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent had not adequately investigated the basis of the client’s request, had not given the Complainant a meaningful opportunity to respond, and had not given proper consideration to redeployment. The dismissal was accordingly found to be unfair.
The Adjudication Officer’s reasoning emphasised that the existence of legitimate commercial pressure on the Respondent did not displace the procedural obligations under the 1977 Act. While the Respondent’s commercial position was understandably difficult, the employee’s right to fair procedures could not be sacrificed to that commercial pressure.
On redress, the Adjudication Officer awarded compensation reflecting the Complainant’s financial loss, calculated by reference to his weekly remuneration and the period during which the loss was reasonably sustained.
4. Takeaway
The case is a clear and useful restatement of the established position: client pressure may amount to a substantial ground for dismissal in principle, but the employer’s procedural obligations are not displaced by it. An employer who acts as the client’s instrument will, in general, be found to have failed in its own duty to its employee.
For employers operating contractor or service-provider models, the practical lesson is that the dismissal process must be the employer’s own. The client’s instruction is information; it is not a decision. The employer must independently investigate the basis of the client’s concerns, engage with the employee, consider redeployment to alternative client sites, and document its reasoning. Only where redeployment is genuinely impossible and where the employer’s independent assessment supports the client’s concerns will dismissal be available.
Employers should also bear in mind the contractual relationship with the client. A contractual clause permitting the client to require the removal of personnel does not, on its own, justify the dismissal of those personnel by the employer. The employer remains the contracting party to the employment relationship and must act consistently with its obligations under the 1977 Act.
For employees, the case is helpful authority that a removal-from-site dismissal will be examined on its own merits. Practitioners should focus on whether the employer conducted its own investigation, whether the employee was given a fair opportunity to respond, and whether redeployment was meaningfully considered. The absence of any of those elements is likely to ground a successful complaint.
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
