A chef was awarded compensation for unfair dismissal after being terminated without fair procedures shortly after a miscarriage, with the employer’s reliance on absence reporting breaches found unreasonable.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Chef from March 2023, earning €576.92 per week in accordance with her employment permit. She notified the Respondent of her pregnancy in October 2024. In early December 2024, the Complainant informed the Managing Director by WhatsApp that she was unwell, experiencing bleeding and pain, and would not be attending work. She subsequently suffered a miscarriage. The same week, a colleague informed the Managing Director of the miscarriage, following which he sent the Complainant a message of sympathy and asked when she would return to work. The following week, the Complainant received a letter via WhatsApp terminating her employment with two weeks’ notice, without any stated reason. The Complainant disputed that the termination was ever validly revoked and denied that she resigned from her employment.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant commenced employment in March 2023 on a part-time basis and was later granted a work permit and full-time contract in February 2024. The Respondent contended that the Complainant had a persistent history of poor timekeeping and attitude issues, which resulted in verbal warnings and a written warning issued in March 2024. Following the resignation of two senior chefs in September 2024, the Complainant became the sole chef. After she disclosed her pregnancy in October 2024, adjustments were made to support her. In December 2024 he learnt the Complainant had miscarried and was told she would be absent for an indefinite period. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant failed to personally notify management of her absence contrary to policy, and that her employment was therefore terminated. The Respondent asserted that the dismissal was later revoked and that the Complainant resigned

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. The termination letter did not set out any reasons for dismissal and was issued without any meeting, investigation, or opportunity for the Complainant to respond or appeal. The Respondent was aware that the Complainant had suffered a miscarriage, and reliance on technical breaches of absence-reporting procedures in those circumstances was found to be unreasonable and disproportionate. The Adjudication Officer held that the Respondent failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. Once communicated, the dismissal took legal effect, and the Adjudication Officer preferred the Complainant’s evidence that she did not accept the alleged revocation of the dismissal or resign. While the Complainant had not fully complied with reporting procedures, the overwhelming responsibility for the dismissal rested with the Respondent. Compensation was deemed the appropriate remedy, and an award of €8,000 was made.

• This decision highlights the critical importance of adhering to fair procedures before terminating employment, even where an employer believes there are contractual or disciplinary grounds for dismissal. Employers must ensure that employees are informed of the allegations against them, afforded an opportunity to respond, and given access to representation and an appeal. Failure to follow these basic steps is likely to render a dismissal procedurally unfair, regardless of the underlying conduct. 
   
  
• Employers should exercise particular care where an employee is absent due to illness, pregnancy-related complications, or other medical emergencies. Technical reliance on absence-reporting policies, without regard to known medical circumstances, may be viewed as unreasonable or disproportionate.        
   
  
• Finally, once a dismissal has been clearly communicated, employers should be aware that it takes immediate legal effect. Attempts to retrospectively revoke a dismissal without the employee’s clear agreement may not cure procedural defects. Employers should seek legal advice before issuing termination letters in sensitive situations and ensure that all disciplinary actions are documented, proportionate, and compliant with statutory codes of practice.

The full case can be found here.