Background:

The Complainant was employed in an administrative role with the Respondent from December 16, 2020, until her dismissal on October 13, 2023. She was compensated €723 gross, equivalent to €600 net, for a 39-hour workweek. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent dismissed her without providing any reason.

She detailed her involvement with the company managed by her long-term partner, Mr. A. Initially assisting with administrative tasks, she was formally employed as an Office Administrator from October 13, 2023. However, her relationship with Mr. A deteriorated, coinciding with her lack of payment from that date. Approximately three weeks before her dismissal, her wages were reduced from €723 to €175 per week. Despite attempts to contact the Respondent, she received no response, explanation, or dismissal procedure. She believed her role was filled by another individual and stated that the business remains financially stable.

Regarding mitigation of loss, the Complainant emphasised the difficulty of finding work compatible with her childcare and home responsibilities. She registered on job search platforms, enrolled in a course to become a healthcare assistant, and attended a job interview, but was unsuccessful. Additionally, she cited the loss of her salary, annual car insurance, and mobile phone access as financial impacts resulting from her dismissal. The Respondent failed to engage with the WRC.

Finding:

The Complainant's dismissal was undisputed; the key issue was whether the Respondent acted reasonably in executing the dismissal, as required under Section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Act mandates that employers provide substantial justification and follow fair procedures in termination cases. Citing the precedent of Frizelle v. New Ross Credit Union Ltd [1997], it was emphasised that natural justice requires transparent communication, fair interviews, evidence-based decisions, and proportionality in dismissal. The Complainant's uncontested evidence revealed that no reason was given for her dismissal, nor were proper procedures followed, leading to the conclusion that her dismissal was unfair.

Regarding redress, under Section 7 of the Act, reinstatement, re-engagement, or compensation are possible remedies. It was noted that while the Complainant made some effort to mitigate her loss, it was minimal compared to the standards established in Coad v. Eurobase (UD1138/2013). Taking into account her circumstances, the Respondent was directed to pay the Complainant €19,000, equivalent to approximately six months’ wages, as a just and equitable compensatory sum.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

To avoid disputes and potential penalties, employers must follow fair procedures and provide clear, substantiated reasons for any dismissal. The case highlights the importance of transparent communication and adherence to legal standards. Before terminating employment, employers should ensure they have documented evidence supporting the dismissal and that the employee is given an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the reduction of wages should be handled with clear communication and mutual agreement, ensuring compliance with contractual terms.

Further, employers must engage with bodies like the Workplace Relations Commission to resolve disputes proactively. Failing to do so can lead to unfavourable outcomes, including significant compensation awards. Regular training on employment law and natural justice principles can help maintain compliance and protect the business from legal repercussions.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/july/adj-00050462.html