Prior to the termination of his employment, the Complainant was engaged on two successive fixed term contracts commencing on 18th December 2018. The Complainant was advised on the 14th of January 2020 that the Respondent could not extend his contract due to expire on the 31st of January 2020.  The Complainant argued that his dismissal was unfair and was related to a grievance submitted by him in October 2019.  The Respondent argued that they were unable to offer a further contract as the post did not receive approval from the National Director which was a requirement at that time. The Complainant was advised that he could resubmit an application which would be included for consideration when other opportunities presented. The Complainant did not reapply for subsequent positions which became available.

Before the Complainant’s employment as a multitask attended had been terminated a further attendant was employed and the Complainant argued that he should have been informed about the post.  The Respondent explained the system in some detail and how it could transpire that a person who was appointed on the 29th of January just before the termination of employment of the Complainant may have been offered that post some months previously and a vetting and other procedures would be required before the person could take up the position. In response to the case of the Complainant where he said that he believed that the termination of his employment was for reasons other than the expiry of his contract the Respondent agreed that a meeting had taken place in October 2019 relating to concerns about the Complainant’s performance as well as some issues he had but those issues had been resolved.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the Respondent was unable to provide evidence to support the contention that the reason for the nonrenewal of the contract and the termination of employment was related to a reduction in the need for short term staff which is the purpose of the contract.

The Respondent had also been unable to demonstrate that specific approval was sought for renewal of the term of the Complainant’s employment contract or that having sought approval that his post was specifically refused for an extension. The reason given for the dismissal, which is crucial in any case where the employer terminates employment, does not stand up to scrutiny if the other part of the Respondent’s case is accepted that they sought approval and that they required the position and the work was covered by another employee after the Complainant was dismissed.

Therefore, the Adjudication Officer considered that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof required to satisfy the test that the dismissal occurred solely because of the expiry of the contract and by extension the refusal of approval to issue a further contract.

In relation to redress, the Complainant sought compensation. In considering a fair sum of compensation that should be awarded, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant made little effort to obtain alternative employment.  The Adjudication Officer determined that reinstatement was not appropriate in this matter given the lapse of time, therefore the Adjudication Officer ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €4,302.20 compensation.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/november/adj-00027902.html