The Complainant brought her claim before the WRC on foot of the Respondent employer having misused Section 2(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 in dismissing her for the “expiry of a fixed term/specified purpose contract” when clearly there was available work for her. Additionally, the Complainant was verbally assured her contact would be renewed.

The Complainant commenced as a “Relief Instructor” on the 21st of May of 2018 on a fixed term (12 months) contract. Prior to this contract expiring, she secured a full time (36 hours) fixed term contract beginning on the 11th of March 2019 and which ended on the 6th of March 2020.  The second contract had no reference to any specified purpose; however, the Complainant was of the view that she was filling in for a colleague who was taking time out to cover for a family member and the colleague’s return date was uncertain.  During her time with the Respondent the Complainant argued she was totally professional and caring to the needs of the service users.

At a January meeting, at or about the 20th of January 2020, a client of the Respondent, Client A was discussed by the entire Team. Client A had additional service needs and the Complainant felt that she was a key resource for this Client.  At this meeting attended by Senior Executives, Mr. W and Mr T; Mr T gave what could only be construed by a reasonable person as assurances to the Complainant that she would continue after the 6th of March 2020, her expiry date.

However, on the 4th of February 2020, the Complainant was informed her fixed term contract was coming to an end on the 6th of March 2020 as her colleague was returning to work and there wasn’t a need to renew the Complainant’s contract. The Complainant wrote to her manager expressing her disappointment and outlining what she thought she had been told by the Senior Executives.

Unfortunately, due to a personal Hospital procedure, the Complainant went on sick leave on the 20th of February and never returned to active work.  A formal Appeal was submitted on the 25th of August and replied to on the 7th of September 2020.

In final summary the Complainant’s Representative, made the case that there was a lot more to the ending of the Complainant’s employment than a simple expiry of a contract. It was a clear case of an Unfair Dismissal.  The Complainant stated that she felt that a number of service complaints she had raised during 2019 strongly suggested that Management had come to regard her as a “Troublesome Employee”, that they were best without.

The Respondent’s position was the Complainant was employed on a fixed term contract which expired. The vacancy was only to cover Carer’s Leave for a permanent staff member. This staff member notified Management in December 2019 that she planned to return to work in March 2019. Accordingly, the normal expiry of the Complainant’s contract took place, and that Under section 2(b) of the Unfair Dismissal’s Act 1977 Section 2 (2) (b) – the Exclusions clause -the Complainant’s case had no merit.

The Respondent addressed the issue that the Complainant was dismissed because she had raised Service care issues to the annoyance of Management. This was resolutely denied. Any issues raised by the Complainant were deemed to be ‘normal operational issues’ and resolved locally.

The Adjudication Officer highlighted that ‘natural justice’ be the guiding principle that should be followed when dealing with an Unfair Dismissal enquiry.

The oral testimony from Respondent managers all pointed to a comprehensive and largely positive engagement with the Complainant over general service issues. These testimonies were supported by meeting minutes. From an outside viewpoint it was hard to see anything of so grievous a nature as to sustain the Complainant’s arguments of a “negative agenda” against her.

Having carefully evaluated all the evidence and in particular the oral testimony from the witnesses for both sides, the Adjudication Officer found that it was not possible to find a strong enough case to support the Troublesome Employee “malign scenario”.

The Adjudication Officer concluded, having carefully reviewed all the evidence presented, especially the Oral Testimony, the balance of probability has to lie with the Respondent. Section 2(2)(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act was deemed to apply, a Fixed Term contract had expired, and the Unfair Dismissals Act does not apply.

Guidance for Employers

This case is interesting in exploring the law around the ending of fixed term contracts which can be deemed unfair.  Employers, however, can prevent such a finding where they have a written contract specifying the specific duration or purpose of the contract; the contract is signed by both the employer and the employee and the contract contains a clause that states that the expiry of the contract will not make it liable to a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

The full case is available here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/september/adj-00029262.html