The subsequent judgment in Owen Hughes v Mongodb Limited [2014 IEHC 335] (Mr Justice Keane, 6 June 2014) endorsed this approach.

This case concerned an injunction application seeking to restrain the termination of the plaintiff’s employment. On 8 May 2014 the plaintiff received a call from this supervisor confirming that his employment was being terminated and that he would be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. The plaintiff took injunctive proceedings, claiming that his dismissal was in breach of fair procedures and caused damage to his reputation.

The employer’s position was that the termination of his employment was in compliance with the terms and conditions of employment. The employer felt that the plaintiff was not a good fit for the company and there was no question of his dismissal being based on misconduct or poor performance. It was the plaintiff’s position that, contrary to the defendant’s claim, it was not a ‘no fault’ dismissal and rather it was a poor performance termination. His assertion was that this poor performance reason was a ‘bad’ reason for termination as a term must be implied into the contract of employment, in the absence of such express term, to the effect that any termination based on poor performance can only occur subject to the operation of a disciplinary process that applies all of the relevant rules of natural justice and fair procedures. 

Keane J noted that the proposition that the dismissal was fault based was important to the plaintiff’s case for the following reasons:

1. It gave him standing to make the legal argument that the traditional common law position had been reversed such that an employer was no longer entitled to terminate a contract of employment in accordance with the relevant notice if his reason for termination can be shown to be ‘bad’. 

Mr Justice Keane noted that there is no authority for this argument and indeed pointed to the judgment in Bradshaw v Murphy above as a strong authority to the contrary, as in that case it was held that an employer could not be inhibited pending the trial of action from exercising a common law right to terminate the employee’s employment in accordance with applicable contractual provisions concerning reasonable notice, whatever might be the outcome of the employee’s claim that his original dismissal was wrongful.

2. The fault based argument would also allow the plaintiff to make the argument that the reason for the termination was bad, when considered in conjunction with the assertion that there is an implied term in his contract of employment that any fault based dismissal can only be effected in accordance with the disciplinary procedure conducted in accordance with the requirements of natural justice and fair procedures. 

Mr Justice Keane noted that no evidence had been produced that the defendant represented to the plaintiff or to any other person that the dismissal was fault based.

In refusing the application for injunctive relief, Mr Justice Keane noted that the defendant's position was that it has relied on a contractual entitlement to dismiss to plaintiff subject to appropriate payment in lieu of notice and that it had not sought to rely on poor performance, and much less misconduct, as a reason for termination. Mr Justice Keane noted that even if the defendant was being disingenuous in the reasons it gave for termination there was no authority for the proposition that a bad reason that informs but was not relied upon to justify the termination of an employment in accordance with its terms, renders that dismissal wrong in law. 

Full case decision:
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2014/H335.html 

CONCLUSION 

These judgments are noteworthy and represent a new dawn in Irish employment law in that they appear to suggest that an employer can abandon a disciplinary process in favour of a ‘no fault’ dismissal, provided the ‘no fault’ dismissal is executed in accordance with the relevant contractual terms. Furthermore, the comments of Mr Justice Keane in Hughes v Mongodb suggest that even if alleged misconduct or poor performance informs a decision to terminate employment, if it is not relied upon to justify termination then this will not render a dismissal unfair. 

Our view is that employers should however still take care in such cases. If engaging in a disciplinary process (whether or not it is completed) they should ensure that natural justice and fair procedures are afforded to an employee. In effecting a ‘no fault’ dismissal, the terms and conditions of employment will be important and they should be strictly adhered to. As stated at the outset, these judgments are specific to ‘no fault’ termination cases, and were decided on their specific facts, and do not represent a licence for employers to seek to ignore natural justice and fair procedures requirements in terminating an employee’s employment.