Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer ordered that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €21,980 (equates to 14 months’ salary) in compensation for her actual and prospective financial loss.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The Adjudication Officer highlighted The Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 places additional focus on the role of a Respondent when it provides a burden of proof. The Act provides that it shall be for the employer to show the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. In this particular case, the Adjudication Officer found a sharp deficit in the duty of care that is expected in Employer: Employee relationship.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a secretary in an extended family firm until 2nd of November 2020. The Complainant said she was unfairly dismissed, however, the Respondent disputed both the salary relied on by the Complainant and the dismissal, instead stating the Complainant resigned from her employment in December 2019. The Complainant is a former Partner of one of the Directors.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at hearing. The Respondent, however, submitted the Complainant was absent from work for 10 months and as other members of staff had covered for her, the Respondent had “felt in essence that Rose had quit the job of her own accord. “  The Respondent outlined the Complainant was paid until September 2020.

The Respondent outlined personal difficulties which arose, where the Complainant, who had been in a relationship with the Respondent’s son, was party to a formal end of the relationship, with input from the Courts on custody issues.

The Complainant outlined she had worked on a full-time basis, without incident under a contract of employment with the Respondent business from 2010 and as her employer, the Respondent Complainant had obligations to abide with notice prior to termination in addition to disciplinary procedures.

The Complainant submitted she had unexpectedly received a letter by email from the Respondent which conveyed a completed decision to terminate her employment “as and from 25 September, due to the downtown in our business due to covid 19 “. The complainant submitted she was shocked to learn of her dismissal, and it had a harsh impact on her as she experienced a 10-week gap before securing social welfare, arising in arrears in rent and difficulty in finding new work.

The Complainant’s counsel submitted this decision did not arise from any disciplinary or performance issues in the workplace and was short of procedural fairness or natural justice. Counsel argued the Respondent had not acted reasonably in dismissing the complainant as they had not followed any procedure in coming to the decision to dismiss the complainant or provide her with notice. She had not been equipped with any procedures which the respondent was to observe before and for the purpose of her dismissal. Counsel argued the Respondent also failed to consider alternatives, i.e. by placing the Complainant on the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme.

The Adjudication Officer accepted the Complainant did not resign from her position at the Respondent business and was not provided with any written evidence by the Respondent the Complainant had resigned from her position. In the absence of the Respondent, and evidence to the contrary, the Adjudication Officer could not identify substantial grounds or reasonable circumstances which underpinned this cessation of employment. Therefore, the Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant was dismissed.

Additionally, the Adjudication Officer found the Respondent fell seriously short of best practice and respect for the Complainant both as an employee and associated family member when they deconstructed her employment without inviting her participation.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/november/adj-00032408.html