Background:

The Complainant was an employee of the Respondent from 25 September 2014. The Complainant had a number of outstanding issues regarding pay, which were the subject of a separate Adjudication Officer Determination (ADJ-00029601). While the Complainant was pursuing these disputes with the Respondent, the Respondent announced plans via email that it would “merge” with another company, Superior Security on 16 January 2020. The Complainant attempted to engage with representatives of the Respondent the day after, on 17 January 2020, but he was brushed off and subsequently warned that “you are going to be sacked.” On 5 February 2020, the Complainant was advised that there was an investigation ongoing regarding the “incident” on 17 January 2020.

In the course of this engagement, COVID-19 intervened in mid-March 2020, making the Complainant’s role as a stationary security guard redundant for a period of time. The Complainant’s issues remained dormant until September 2020, when the Complainant learned from a colleague that his posting location, Letterkenny IT, was re-opening, although the Complainant was not invited to return to work. On 10 September 2020, the Complainant was asked to meet the CEO of the Respondent at a hotel, at which he was shown a letter which the CEO said was a redundancy letter. The Complainant did not accept it and was advised, “you’re getting one in the post, you’re fucked.” The Complainant did not receive any such correspondence in the post and was not advised at any point afterward whether his employment was at an end or not.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer, remarking that “aspects of the narrative in this case are complicated,” found that it was clear that at some indeterminate point in September 2020, the Complainant was dismissed by the Respondent, and that any proper reason for the dismissal was a contrivance and was procedurally and substantively unfair. The Adjudication Officer took a rigorous approach to assessing compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, and while he did apply a reduction for the Complainant’s part failure to mitigate, he only considered this part of the compensation which comprises “all of the circumstances” which he is obliged to consider in making an award.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

While the general rule that the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 only provides for financial loss still remains valid, this case also indicates that other factors, such as gross failures of the employer to provide fairness, can result in a larger award than would otherwise be calculated.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/december/adj-00032287.html