Blog Layout

Unfair Dismissal - Contribution of Employee to Dismissal


Unfair dismissal contributions

Introduction


While an employee may often win their claim of unfair dismissal, an Adjudication Officer may reduce the amount awarded on foot of the conduct of that employee.


In this article, we review a number of cases that involve employees who were successful in their claims of unfair dismissal, but who had their compensation reduced to reflect the fact that their own conduct had contributed to their dismissal. 


Jacinta Doyle v River Island Clothing Co. (Ireland) Ltd (ADJ-00029939)


In this case the Adjudication Officer noted the refusal of the Complainant to engage in the appeals process. It was stated that: “In terms of a standard Unfair Dismissals case, this refusal is very detrimental to the complainant. There is extensive case law to support this point”. 


The Adjudication Officer upheld the complaint under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977. However, only €1000 was awarded to the Complainant due to the fact that “the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds but with a very significant Complainant counterweight”. 


A PM/ Complainant v A Food Producer (ADJ-00023204)


In this case, despite finding that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant’s conduct had contributed to the decision to dismiss him. 


This conduct included the Complainant’s “attitude, his demeanour, his lack of trust in his employer – setting them up with recorded meetings, his repeated argumentative approach at meetings and his repeated references to wanting an offer to leave.” In the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, all of these actions had “undoubtedly contributed to his own downfall”. 


As a result of this, the Adjudication Officer concluded that the compensation to be awarded to the Complainant should be reduced by 60%. 


A Senior Receptionist v A Boutique Hotel (ADJ-00016679)


In this case, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. 


In considering the amount of compensation to be awarded, the Adjudication Officer noted section 7(1)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 which states that when considering the issue of compensation, an Adjudication Officer must consider what is “just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances”. 


He also noted section 7(2)(f) which states that the complainant’s contribution to the situation must be taken into account. 


The Adjudication Officer concluded that the actions of the Complainant in this case warranted a reduction of 25% in the amount of compensation to be awarded. It was held that the Complainant had contributed to his own dismissal by acting in an intimidatory manner towards a Ms. XF. 


Motor Mechanic v A Transport Company (ADJ-00021420)


Similarly, in this case the Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant had been dismissed as a form of penalisation under the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act,2005. 


However, they acknowledged that the employee had made a significant contribution to the situation. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded was reduced in order to reflect this. 


Key Takeaways 


What both employers and employees should take away from these cases is that while an employee may be found to be unfairly dismissed, the compensation awarded to them will be reduced to reflect the contribution that they have made to their own downfall. 


Therefore, before employees decide to take a claim, they should consider to what extent their own actions contributed to the dismissal. 


Share

Remote  work laws in Ireland
by RG343171 16 August 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
9 August 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 July 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
6 June 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
5 June 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
3 June 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: