Employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed without fair procedures, with compensation reduced for mitigation and contributory fault.

The Complainant employed as Director of Nursing from August 2018 until October 2023, claimed she was unfairly dismissed without fair procedures and penalised for raising health and safety concerns. She earned €88,000 annually plus benefits. She had a strong management record but despite her efforts to maintain safe standards, HIQA found non-compliance in June and August 2023. She alleged that responsibility was unfairly shifted onto her through a performance plan. In October 2023, she was abruptly told to resign or face dismissal without reference, and her employment was terminated that week without right of appeal. HIQA later confirmed her reports were protected disclosures. She testified that dismissal had severe financial and personal impacts, forcing her into lower-paid agency work and damaging her career due to public HIQA reports. A resident’s relative corroborated her claims of declining standards post-takeover. She argued fair procedures were absent and that HIQA non-compliance stemmed from staffing issues, not her performance.

The Respondent’s case was presented primarily through management. They testified that while the Complainant initially received a bonus in December 2022, by early 2023 it was clear she was unsuitable due to persistent HIQA non-compliance in staffing, governance, and care. They argued the 2018 staffing model prepared by the Complainant was “bizarre” and led to overstaffing, while high turnover and COVID-19 created further challenges. It was claimed the Complainant resisted using agency staff and failed to engage constructively with support. Further, they stated serious management and compliance concerns occurred. They ultimately terminated the Complainant’s employment due to her ongoing poor performance, insisting the priority was patient welfare. One manager highlighted extreme staff absenteeism and turnover. On a penalisation claim (insisting on uniforms), the Respondent relied on standard practice. They denied it was a demotion, emphasising it was consistent with infection control and leadership by example.

The Adjudicating Officer found the Complainant was unfairly dismissed under s.8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Although the Respondent raised serious performance concerns, it failed to afford basic fair procedures. The Complainant was never warned her job was at risk and the COO had already decided to terminate per an email in September 2023. No disciplinary procedure or Code of Practice steps were invoked. Applying Khan v HSE, the lack of notice, opportunity, and impartial procedure they rendered the dismissal unreasonable. They calculated gross financial loss at €90,700 to October 2024, but reduced compensation by 33% for failure to mitigate and a further 33% for the Complainant’s own faults (management shortcomings evidenced by HIQA concerns), awarding €30,233.33 (gross).

Employers should:

• Ensure that all actions comply with the principles of fair procedures. This means employees must be given clear notice of the issues raised, an opportunity to respond, and explicit warning if their job is at risk. A performance improvement plan (PIP) should never be treated as a formality. It must be completed before any dismissal decision is made, and outcomes must be fairly assessed.
   
  
• Follow their own disciplinary procedures and the statutory Code of Practice (S.I. 117/1996). Even where performance issues appear obvious, failure to apply these procedures exposes the employer to findings of unfair dismissal. Proper documentation is essential in demonstrating reasonableness and transparency.
   
  
• Separate operational frustrations from formal decision-making. Termination decisions should only follow a structured disciplinary process, ideally involving HR oversight, to minimise risk of legal challenge and ensure dismiss is procedurally fair and legally sound.

The full case can be found here.