Blog Layout

Unfair Dismissal - Compensation Considerations


Unfair Dismissal Compensation Considerations

Unfair Dismissal - Compensation


In most circumstances, when an individual brings a claim of unfair dismissal, if successful, they may be awarded loss of earnings from the termination date until they obtain new employment. In theory, a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act can result in an award of up to 2 years’ salary, however these awards are quite rare.


However, the case of An Optical Assistant -v- Retail Optical Shop (ADJ00018205), highlights the considerations an Adjudication Officer will factor when deciding whether or not to award a higher compensation amount than the loss of earnings.


Background


The complainant employee commenced employment with the respondent company on 01 April 2014. On 15 November 2018, she received a solicitor’s letter, purportedly on behalf of the complainant, enclosing her P45. On the P45 document her end of employment date was given as 03 November 2018. The letter contained a detailed series of questions concerning her employment status, who her employer was, details of her contact of employment and other information that would have ordinarily been provided for previously under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The complainant employee was most perplexed as there had been no formal notice of termination of employment, no redundancy process or investigation or disciplinary process.


In response, the respondent company countered that, having recently acquired the shop from which the complainant employee purportedly worked, they discovered that a number of individuals on the payroll were not working at the store and therefore their employment was terminated. 


One of the directors of the complainant company noted that this termination was part of a “tidying up” process and that the individual concerned was never an actual employee of the store in question.


Other Factors - Award of Compensation


The Adjudication Officer in this matter noted that this case was governed by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 supported by SI 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures and the very considerable body of precedent law in these cases. The case law from the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Labour Court and the higher courts emphasised the paramount role of the rules of natural justice in all cases. The Adjudication Officer noted that, from the evidence given, it was clear that the complainant had been an employee. However, she was a low ranking employee and had, in effect, to his view, become “collateral damage” in the main commercial dispute between certain directors. Proper procedures of formal investigation, meetings to consider her status and the opportunity of an appeal did not take place prior to any decision to dismiss the complainant employee. The issuing of the P45 constituted a dismissal.


Award of Compensation under Unfair Dismissals Act


The Adjudication Officer found that no rules of natural justice were observed. That being the case, the Adjudication Officer deemed that one year’s gross salary, being approximately €30,000, is an appropriate award given that proper procedure was not followed in any fashion whatsoever.


Further Information


For further information, please contact the author of this article, Barry Crushell.

Share

Remote  work laws in Ireland
by RG343171 16 Aug, 2024
The case of Aline Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600) examines the obligations employers have, under Irish law, when a request for remote work is made by an employee. As the law in Ireland currently stands, there is no right to remote work per se. This may be overcome when an individual has been guaranteed remote work in their contract of employment or remote work has been determined to constitute a reasonable accommodation in accordance with relevant employment legislation, where applicable. However, none of these exceptions applied in the present case.
Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act
09 Aug, 2024
The case of Dean Hart v Komfort Kare (ADJ00051923) examines the circumstances under which a request for time off, by a parent, from their employer, must be given due consideration. Dean Hart (the Complainant) brought a complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 against Komfort Kare (the Respondent) to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), alleging that they denied him the right to take force majeure despite extenuating circumstances.
Constructive Dismissal and Sexual Harassment
31 Jul, 2024
The case of Care Worker v Costern Unlimited Company (ADJ00046268) examines the circumstances under which it will be deemed reasonable for an employee to resign and bring a claim of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal on foot of a failure of their employer to properly investigate their complaints.
Payment of notice pay after probation
06 Jun, 2024
The case of Eric Bentley v Carcharger EV Limited (ADJ00050468) examines the circumstances under which an employee will be entitled to a payment in lieu of notice if dismissed during their probationary period. This is a very interesting case, as it was brought under the payment of wages provisions, but decided upon under notice legislation.
Interview discrimination
05 Jun, 2024
The case of A Job Applicant v A Public Body (ADJ00049321) examines the burden of proof in discrimination claims, particularly when discrimination is being claimed at the interview stage.
The Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Claims in Ireland
03 Jun, 2024
The case of Mark Lowry v JJ Fleming and Company Limited (ADJ00036677) examines the burden of proof issues that often arise in constructive dismissal claims. Uniquely, the employer offered no substantive evidence to support their case, yet won, highlighting the very difficult hurdles an employee often faces in bringing an unfair dismissal claim following their resignation.
Show More
Share by: