Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eleanor  Dawson

Steam Academy Limited

(In Liquidation- Liquidator Shane McAleer of McAleer Gibney Chartered Accountants Limited)

Representatives

Self-Represented

Greta Siskauskaite, Fieldfisher Ireland LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00067313-001

11/11/2024

The complainant submitted a claim under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 on the 11th of November 2024.   The complainant’s employment terminated on  4TH of August 2024.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.    Prior to the hearing the Commission was advised that the respondent was now in liquidation and that the liquidator would not  be in attendance at the hearing.

The complainant submits that

She commenced employment with the respondent on 15/05/2023.  The complainant submit that she worked full-time for the respondent from 15/05/2023 to 31/08/2023.   

 The complainant submits that  from 01/09/2023  she  moved to part-time hours, a move which she submits was mutually agreed between both parties. 

The complainant submits that her employment was terminated by the respondent on 4th of August 2024.   The complainant submits that the reason given for her termination of employment was that the respondent needed someone in the job on a full-time basis immediately.   The complainant submit that she would have been available for full time hours from July 2024.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  

 Prior to the hearing the Commission was advised that the respondent was now in liquidation.   The Commission was  advised that the liquidator would not be in attendance at the hearing, but their representative asked to be notified of the outcome of the hearing.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) provides that,

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

It is apparent from this that every dismissal is unfair until the employer demonstrates otherwise.  The burden of proof therefore rests with the respondent to set out the substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the complainant in this case. 

The complainant advised the hearing that she had been employed by the respondent from 15/05/2023.  The complainant stated that she was working full-time for the respondent from 15/05/2023 to 31/08/2023.     The complainant advised the hearing that from 01/09/2023  she had  transferred to part-time work a move which was mutually agreed between the complainant and respondent.   The complainant stated that during this period while she was off on holidays she  was  asked by her area manager to attend an online meeting, which was scheduled to take place on 16/05/2024.  The complainant advised the hearing that during this meeting, the complainant was  told that her role as a part-time staff member was no longer suitable for the company as the company needed someone who would be available full-time.  The complainant stated that it was  not possible for her to work full time at that time as she was also in college but that she would soon be available for full time hours.

The complainant advised the hearing that prior to this meeting there had not been any correspondence that part-time availability was not sufficient or that her role as such was at risk.

The complainant stated that following the meeting, she spoke with the manager via Slack messaging about her unhappiness at being told she was no longer needed and the complainant also advised that she would have been able for full-time work from mid July 2024.

The complainant advised the hearing that she  was told that being available for full time work from July onwards was  not soon enough for the company and that they needed to hire someone as soon as possible for the full time role.

The complainant stated that she was issued with a termination letter on June 24th, 2024, with her last day outlined as 4th of August 2024 (two months’ notice as per her contract of employment).

The complainant stated that the respondent offered that her last month's payment would be made  without the need to work her notice as a 'good gesture' .

The complainant told the hearing that the payslip when issued  referred to this as 'redundancy'  despite her saying that she did not agree with this wording. The complainant stated that the respondent then offered to change the wording  but that she said it was not necessary in the end.

The complainant advised the hearing that to her  knowledge up to the time of her employment ending the respondent had not made any hires for her replacement.  The complainant submits that she had indicated that she would be available for full time work after July and that it would have taken the company until July in any event to go through the hiring, contracting, and training process to replace her with a full-time person.

The complainant advised the hearing that during her employment with the respondent she had been working remotely and living in the Netherlands.   The complainant stated that she had not secured alternative employment until  October 2024 when she had moved back to Ireland from the Netherlands.  The complainant did not produce any documentation in respect of her efforts to mitigate her loss but stated that she had been searching for work from August to October 2024 at which point she moved ack to Ireland.

The complainant stated that she had secured employment in October but was not permitted to start until 5th of  December as she had to wait for the overseas police check to come through from the Netherlands which the complainant stated can take up to 12 weeks.   The complainant stated that her attempts to find work were hampered by the fact that she was attending college in the Netherlands at the time and that local jobs had a requirement for employees to be proficient in Dutch and that she was otherwise restricted to searching for remote working.   

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing and no evidence was proffered in discharge of the burden/onus of proof on the Respondent to show that the dismissal was not unfair.   

On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the complainant, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was unfairly  dismissed and  Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well-founded.  

In considering the redress to be awarded I note that the complainant outlined that there were certain obstacles to her being able to secure alternative employment for the time she remained in the Netherlands and before she returned to Ireland. 

Having regard to the totality of the evidence presented and taking into account all the circumstances of this case I award the Complainant the sum of €2,400.

I  declare this claim to be well founded, and I award the complainant redress of €2,400 in respect of the unfair dismissal.