The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, the Embassy of Brazil, in November 2001.  Her employment ended in 2021. The Complainant worked 40 hours per week as a housekeeper.  The Complainant brought a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Redundancy Payments Act to the WRC in November 2021.

The Complaint submitted that at all times her remuneration package included room and board, specified to include, “a private room, equipped with heating, bathroom, kitchen, a common living room and dining room, TV and telephone at no charge except for private long-distance call”, in a mews in the Ambassador’s home.  This accommodation was a very valuable and important benefit to the Complainant.

In November 2020, the Complainant was informed the Ambassador was moving house and her room would no longer be available to her.  The loss of such a benefit was very significant; it meant she had to live out, there was a commute time and additional utility and transport expenses.  The Complainant sought an increase to her remuneration to compensate for her loss, but no adequate proposal was forthcoming.  Consequently, she was informed by letter of, that, as she had not accepted the Respondent’s offer to cover the new expenses associated commute, her employment was to terminate on the 27th of July 2021.

The Complainant felt aggrieved at the way her employment ended though she does not blame any one individual.

The Respondent submitted that as part of the household of the Ambassador, the Complainant lived at the Residence. The first employment contract signed between the Respondent and the Complainant included a “room and board” clause.  No other contract signed by the Respondent has ever had such a room and board clause. The Respondent submitted that after some years in Ireland the Complainant married an Irish Citizen and they took residence in another place.  Her marriage altered her visa status, which ceased to be connected to the Respondent.  For convenience, the Complainant kept the possibility to use the mews house for overnight stays during the week. However, the “room and board” clause of her contract was not changed to reflect that new circumstance.

In early November 2020, the Complainant was informed that as a result of the termination of the lease agreement the Respondent had for the existing property, (due to administrative and budgetary constraints), the Embassy would probably be moving to a smaller premises and the provision of a room would no longer be available to the Complainant.

In March 2021, the Embassy moved to another location, to occupy a house that was rented for a price substantially lower than the previous property. As the new residence did not have enough space to house employees, the Respondent proposed to both the Embassy cook and the Complainant to update their employment contracts, with the removal of the room clause.

The Respondent submitted that it continued liaising with the Complainant in relation to these changes and made a good faith proposal to increase her salary to cover any new expenses associated with the extra daily commute from her home to the premises of the new Embassy, which was within commuting distance of her home. The Respondent submitted that the proposed salary increase was reasonable and corresponded to the maximum admissible under budgetary rules and the salary scheme and policy governing the contracts of local hired staff.  The Embassy also proposed a friendly termination of the contract, with the payment of a lump sum.

The Respondent submitted it made all possible efforts to resolve the matter to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. Unfortunately, the Respondent had no alternative but to terminate the Complainant’s employment contract.

The Adjudication Officer considered the facts of this case to be an unfortunate situation as it was clear the Complainant was a highly respected employee, and the Respondent did not want to see her leave her post. The Adjudication Officer was satisfied that after the decision to move location was made, the Respondent put forward good faith proposals to address the Complainant’s general concerns; her additional travel expenses and the loss of a substantial benefit she had enjoyed for many years, namely her accommodation. The Respondent was constrained in what it could do under budgetary rules and the salary scheme and policy governing the contracts of local hired staff.

The Adjudication Officer posed the question of whether a dismissal was justified in the circumstances.

In this instant case, the Adjudication Officer found that nothing was put forward by the Respondent that justified the dismissal of the Complainant.

The Adjudication Officer held that in this case there was a near absence of procedures, and therefore found the dismissal to have been procedurally unfair.  The Adjudication Officer held that this was not a redundancy situation as the Complainant’s position was filled on the termination of her employment.

Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer found the Complaint is well founded and awarded the Complainant compensation in the sum of €21,793.

Guidance for Employers:

Every dismissal of an employee will be presumed to have been unfair unless the employer can show substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Even if some justification for the dismissal could be found, an employer is bound to show not only had they substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that they followed fair and proper procedures before dismissal.

The full case is available here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/november/adj-00035802.html