Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Donal  Finnegan

Liffeyfield Limited, t/a  Bonnington Hotel

Representatives

Gavan Mackay, Mackay Solicitors

Jack Tchrakian, B.L., instructed by Paul W. Keogh & Co Solicitors, LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068173-001

18/12/2024

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

CA-00068173-002

18/12/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent sometime in June 2018 as a carpenter.  He was paid €860.00 per week and worked 40 hours per week.  The Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 08/08/2024.  He submitted his complaints of unfair dismissal and terms of employment to the WRC on 18/12/2024.  The Respondent concedes the claim under the Terms of Employment (information) Act, 1994 but submits that the Complainant was not unfairly selected for redundancy and that his role was no longer required.

The Respondent operates a hotel and employs approximately 110 staff.  The Complainant worked in the maintenance department.  It became clear to the Respondent that due to the unavailability of work and the finances of the organisation a decision was made to make the role of carpenter redundant.  The Complainant was invited to a meeting on 04/07/2024 and he was advised that his role would be made redundant and his employment would cease on 08/08/2024.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that this was a genuine redundancy

Evidence – Mr Alex Grad:

Mr Alex Grad gave evidence on oath on behalf of the Respondent.  He confirmed that he is the maintenance manager and he has been in this role since 2007.  He is responsible for the maintenance department at the hotel and is also a qualified plumber.  Mr Grad gave evidence that he was to give the Complainant work and he only did carpentry work.  Mr Grad stated that the Complainant was employed approximately eight years ago.  Mr Grad clarified that the carpentry role would be required for big projects and general maintenance work.  The Complainant’s work was good and he was an excellent carpenter and there were no problems with him.

Mr Grad stated that in 2024 there were no more big projects and there was only general maintenance work.  Four of the maintenance department employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy. These were a facilities manager, a painter, a labourer, and the Complainant.  Mr Grad confirmed that the decision to make these roles redundant was made by a Mr James McGettigan who is the Managing Director.

Mr Grad stated that the consultation process involved discussions with him about the fact that there was not enough work for the Complainant.  These discussions took place with the general manager.  Mr Grad stated that the Complainant left before his last day of employment. 

Mr Grad was asked about a job which was advertised by the Respondent and he confirmed that there was no similarity between that job and the Complainant’s.  Mr Grad confirmed that the Complainant was not involved in any painting or plumbing work.  This job was advertised when one of the general maintenance staff left and it was a replacement for that role.

Mr Grad confirmed that he was aware that the Complainant was contacted by a Mr Kirby who is the Purchasing Manager at the hotel.  Mr Grad stated that he was told by Mr James McGettigan that Mr Kirby had offered the Complainant a job but he did not accept the offer. 

Mr Grad confirmed to the Adjudication Officer that he now has four staff in the maintenance department.  There is also a gardener. 

Cross examination Mr Alex Grad:

Mr Grad was cross examined by Mr Mackay on behalf of the Complainant.  Mr Grad confirmed that the hotel has 200 rooms, a pool and leisure centre and a conference centre.   Mr Grad also confirmed that he had no role in relation to making the Complainant redundant.   Mr Grad was asked if he was aware of what the Complainant was employed to do.  He stated that the Complainant worked in the Queen Street premises doing renovation work.  Mr Grad stated that as far as he was aware the Complainant was doing carpentry work.

It was put to Mr Grad that it was accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant did not have a contract of employment or any document which set out the nature of his duties.  The Complainant’s evidence will be that he was involved in general maintenance.  Mr Grad stated that the Complainant was doing carpentry work and nothing else.  It was put to Mr Grad that the Complainant regularly assisted another (named) person.  Mr Grad said he did not know this.  It was also put to Mr Grad that the Complainant was involved in general work such as lifting and removing carpets.  Mr Grad said that the Complainant “probably was”.  Mr Grad was asked if he considered the lifting and moving of carpets to be classified as carpentry work and he stated that it would not.  It was put to Mr Grad that the Complainant just didn’t do carpentry work and Mr Grad said that he would agree.  Mr Grad was asked what maintenance work the Complainant done in the hotel rooms.  He stated that the Complainant would be involved in fixing the door closing mechanisms, bathroom repairs and he was involved in the renovation of bathrooms at the time he was dismissed.  Mr Grad was asked how often these projects would take place and he stated that he wasn’t sure.  It was put to Mr Grad that the Complainant’s evidence will be that it was frequent.

Mr Grad was asked about the number of chairs in the Respondent’s restaurant.  He confirmed that it was in the region of 200.  Mr Grad also confirmed that there is still work to be done on a number of these chairs and that he himself is now involved in this.  Mr Grad agreed that he still does plumbing work.  Mr Grad was asked who does the carpentry work in the hotel now and he stated that he himself repairs the door closing.  Mr Grad was asked if he was now saying that in the six years that the Complainant was employed the only carpentry work he done was door closing repairs.  Mr Grad said that he done door closing and chair repairs.   Mr Grad was asked if there was a lot of maintenance work in a 200-bed hotel and he confirmed that there was a lot of general maintenance work.

Mr Grad was asked if he had any role in relation to the decision to make the Complainant redundant.  He confirmed that he had no role. Mr Grad was asked who the decision maker was and he confirmed that it was Mr James McGettigan.  Mr Grad confirmed that Mr McGettigan was not present at the hearing.

Mr Grad was asked if he was told why the decision was made and he stated that he was told that there was not enough work for a carpenter and he was told this about two weeks after the redundancy had taken place.  Mr Grad confirmed that he had no discussion with Mr McGettigan prior to that about the redundancy.  Mr Grad stated that he may have been told by the Facilities Manager.

It was put to Mr Grad that if there were any big projects taking place in the hotel from 2018 to 2024 the Complainant was involved in all of them.  Mr Grad said that he would be.  Mr Grad stated that there are two big projects currently planned.  One is the restaurant renovation and the other is the renovation of the spa area.  Mr Grad confirmed that the decision to undertake these projects was made in February 2025.

Mr Grad was asked what his knowledge of the consultation process with the Complainant was.  He stated that he did not know exactly who was involved but he was not involved and he believed that the General Manager may have been but he could not be certain of this.

Mr Grad was asked about the jobs that were advertised by the Respondent in the maintenance area since the Complainant was made redundant and why he did not consider asking the Complainant if he was interested.   Mr Grad said that he had no role in the redundancy and that it would be up to the facilities manager.  It was put to Mr Grad that there were a number of jobs advertised for which the Complainant was previously engaged.  Mr Grad said that these were not the Complainant’s job.

Mr Grad confirmed that major jobs are not given to a contractor and any moving of carpets is sub contracted.

Re-Direction – Mr Grad:

Following the Complainant’s evidence and cross examination Mr Grad was re-directed.  He was asked if the Complainant’s evidence that he was doing general maintenance work was accurate and he confirmed that it was.  There was a double shift arrangement in place.  Mr Grad confirmed that the Complainant would be involved in filling skips.  Mr Grad was asked what percentage of the general maintenance the Complainant was doing and he stated that he would consider that 90% of his work was carpentry.

Mr Grad was cross examined by Mr Mackey.  It was put to Mr Grad that if the need for carpentry in the hotel had diminished but the Complainant was still busy.  Mr Grad disagreed.  It was put to Mr Grad that at the time of the Complainant’s dismissal he was in the middle of a project and he agreed that he was.

Closing submission:

Mr Tchrakian, B.L., made a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent.  He stated that this was a legitimate redundancy as the Complainant was employed as a specialist carpenter.  The Complainant was highly regarded and, in that context, he was offered a job after his departure.  The employee starter form is clear evidence that he started as a carpenter

Mr Tchrakian said that he wished to respond to the hearsay point raised during the hearing by Mr Mackay.  He stated that Mr Mackay is entitled to state that the decision maker did not attend and give evidence at the hearing.  Mr Grad is aware of the redundancy process and he can give evidence in relation to his knowledge of that.  There is no “out of court” statement being made.  Mr Grad has given evidence in relation to his knowledge of the basis for the redundancy.

The key point is that when the Complainant started employment with the Respondent he started as a carpenter.  There is no evidence other than the Complainant’s own word that he changed to a general maintenance role.

The advertisements are different from a specialist carpenter role and these are very different roles which were responding to a need after the Complainant’s departure.

In relation to mitigation of loss the Complainant was offered a return to a role in February 2025 and as of July 2025 he still has not obtained work. Mr Tchrakian stated that there is a blatant failure on the part of the Complainant to mitigate his loss and this must be taken into account.  Also any potential award must also take into account the €8,000 redundancy he has received.

The evidence is that the Complainant engaged in a flurry of job seeking after his departure and this fell off and there have only been a few isolated attempts to secure employment.  In the event of any award this should be a nominal amount given the complete failure to mitigate his loss.

Evidence – The Complainant:

The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  He gave evidence that he commenced working for Mr McGettigan in June 2018.  He was based in a city centre pub which had apartments overhead.  He was going carpentry work on this renovation project.  He had a discussion with Mr McGettigan about working in the hotel. He moved to the Respondent’s hotel in October 2018 doing maintenance and carpentry work.  He was originally paid €25.00 per hour but following the move to the hotel he was paid €19.50 per hour.   At the time of his dismissal, he was earning €21.50 per hour.  The Complainant confirmed that he was never issued with a contract of employment or any other document in relation to his employment. 

The Complainant gave evidence in relation to the work he was doing in the hotel.  He described it that every day was different.  He gave an example of when a pipe burst in the Spa area he would attend with colleagues and work on it until it was sorted.  His own work consisted of filling skips with items such as old carpets and beds.  He also assisted Mr Grad.  He was also doing repairs to the bedrooms which would be carpentry related such as repairing door frames and holes in walls.  The Complainant also gave evidence that he was responsible for repairing chairs.  This could take a day and he was required to fit additional bars to some chairs and this work was part of the ongoing maintenance duties he had.  The Complainant stated that he was never employed as a specialist carpenter.

The Complainant gave evidence in relation to a meeting he had with a Mr Shane Mealaugh who was the HR Coordinator in the hotel at that time.  He was asked to this meeting on 04/07/2024 at very short notice by email and he had no idea what the meeting was about and Mr Mealaugh did not respond to his request for clarification prior to the meeting.  The Complainant attended the meeting alone and Mr Mealaugh told him that he had a letter to give him.  He said that the hotel was in financial difficulties and he was handed a letter telling him that he was being made redundant and his employment would end on 08/08/2024.  The Complainant confirmed that the copy of the letter opened at the hearing was the letter he was given.  The Complainant gave evidence that this was the only contact he had in relation to his redundancy.  After the meeting he asked about his entitlements.  The Complainant stated that he was not advised that he could appeal the decision, there was no discussion with him in advance of the meeting about redundancy and there was no discussion about alternative work.  The Complainant stated that his employment ended on 02/08/2024 but he was paid up to 08/08/2024.

The Complainant gave evidence of his attempts to seek alternative jobs.  He has applied for a number of jobs but was unsuccessful.  He gave examples of applying for work in hotels and care settings and he also applied for carpentry jobs.

The Complainant gave evidence that he believed that there were other jobs he could have done in the hotel.  If there was any heavy lifting to be done, he would seek assistance from a general operative.  The Complainant stated that he saw the jobs advertised by the Respondent on the website he was using.  He considered that this “was a bit off” as he could have done bedroom repairs and work of that nature.  The Complainant stated that he was not offered any of these roles.  He also confirmed that he still has not returned to work.

Cross examination – The Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Mr Tchrakian, B.L., on behalf of the Respondent.  It was put to the Complainant that a document submitted by the Respondent which is titled “Employee Starter Form” stated in a section noted as “Area of Work” states “carpenter”.  The Complainant stated that this form relates to the date he initially started working at the Respondent’s pub in the city centre.  He confirmed that he is a qualified carpenter since 1979.  The Complainant was asked if he done plumbing work and he stated that he assisted and gave an example of removing sinks from bedrooms.  The Complainant was asked if he had applied for any more jobs as there was a small sample provided.  He stated that there was more.  It was put to the Complainant that he did not seem to have made many applications in recent months.  He confirmed that he did not apply for any of the jobs advertised by the Respondent and he asked why he was not offered any of these before they let him go.  It was put to the Complainant that the jobs advertised were different to the one he had.  He stated that there were some differences but also parts that he could have done.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent contacted him in February 2025 and offered him a job.  The Complainant stated that he was not offered any role.  He confirmed that the person who contacted him was Mr Derek Kirby.  The Complainant stated that Mr Kirby asked him if he wanted a full- time job.  He confirmed that he asked Mr Kirby if he was serious and also why Mr James McGettigan did not contact him.    The Complainant stated that he did not want to go back “after the way they threw me out”.

Closing submission – Mr Mackay:

Mr Mackay made a closing submission on behalf of the Complainant.  He confirmed that the calculations in the Complainant’s written submission does take account of the redundancy payment of €8,002.   The Complainant is now out of work for 49 weeks and his gross loss is €42,140 and allowing for the payment of “the purported statutory redundancy payment” the actual loss to date is €34,138 and his loss is ongoing.

It is accepted by the Respondent that no contract of employment was issued and the award for this breach of the Act is four weeks’ pay.

Mr Mackay noted that there are many inconsistencies in the evidence of the Respondent.  The evidence is given by one employee, Mr Grad, who was not part of the redundancy process.  Mr Grad’s evidence was that he was told two weeks after the redundancy process.

The submission of the Respondent and in particular the letter dated 05/08/2024 needs to be considered.  The Complainant was called to a meeting and not told what it was about.  There was no evidence adduced that his role was at risk or that redundancy was being considered.  The Complainant was presented with a fait accompli at that meeting and the Respondent has not provided any evidence to contradict this.

The Respondent’s case is predicated on the false assertion that the Complainant was engaged in a specialist role and this was put on a form.  The reality is that the Complainant was always a carpenter and is currently an unemployed carpenter.

Mr Grad’s evidence was that the Complainant was employed solely as a carpenter and he then changed this and accepted that there was also a general nature to the Complainant’s work.

Mr Mackay noted that in the Respondent’s submission it states that the dismissal of the Complainant was described as “was valid and fair.”  There was no evidence provided to substantiate this assertion.  The Respondent also failed to provide any evidence that the Complainant could not fulfil other roles.  The advertisement which the Respondent issued within a number of weeks had roles which could have been offered to the Complainant.  In that context Mr Grad’s evidence was that he was only told two weeks later and there is no evidence of any consideration of the Complainant for these roles.

It is also significant that the Complainant was denied the right of appeal.  There is no appeal process in the letter which was handed to the Complainant at the meeting.

The Respondent has justified the selection of the Complainant for redundancy on the basis that they did not need a full-time carpenter.  There is no evidence put before the Adjudication Officer in relation to how this came about.

The Complainant got a call purporting to offer him a job but there was no evidence in relation to what this job was other than Mr Kirby “offered him a job”.  To suggest that the Complainant should have to apply to Respondent for a role is egregious.  The duties advertised are exactly the duties that the Complainant was doing about six weeks previously.

Mr Mackay stated that the Complainant was rebuked for not taking up the role he was offered in February 2025.  The reality is that there is no evidence in relation to what that role was, what the remuneration was or what the duration was.

The fact is that the Complainant was purported to be dismissed due to financial reasons.  Then the Respondent advertised a number of roles six weeks later and another job six months later.

It was confirmed that the Complainant is seeking compensation as a form of redress.

CA-00068173-001: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Terms of Employment (information) Act, 1994 implements an EU directive and applies to all persons working under a contract of employment or apprenticeship (whether on a fulltime or part time basis).  It includes persons working through an employment agency where the party remunerating is responsible for the provision of the said statement of terms.  The Act also provides that an employer must notify the employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the statement of terms.

There was no evidence of a document which was signed and dated by the Respondent.  The Respondent confirmed that it was accepted that the Complainant was not provided with any terms and conditions as required by the Act.

In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a statement to be provided.  In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.  Given the circumstances of this case there is no longer a requirement to provide the terms.  I am guided by the Labour Court in Morehampton Foods Ltd v Gibbons TED 18/2017, where the Court confirmed that a failure to comply with s.2 of the Act “constitutes a single contravention of the Act” and that it was not the case that every omission from a statement mandated by s.3 constituted a stand-alone infringement to which the statutory limit on compensation should be separately applied.  Having considered the evidence in this case I believe that the full compensatory limit under section 7(2) should be applied.  I therefore order that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €3,440 representing four week’s remuneration which I consider to be a just and equitable sum having regard to all the circumstances in this case.

CA-00068173-001: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the Complainant and the Respondent and the oral evidence adduced at the hearing.  

The Complainant contended that he was unfairly dismissed in a sham redundancy process and in the absence of any fair procedures.  The Respondent maintained that the redundancy of the Complainant was valid and fair.  I am therefore required to determine whether the Complainant has been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. 

As the fact of the dismissal was not in dispute the evidential burden of proof rested with the Respondent to establish that the Complainant’s dismissal was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

It is firstly necessary to set out the requisite statutory provisions pertaining to this complaint. 

In the instant case the Respondent seeks to establish that the dismissal of the Complainant was not an unfair dismissal as the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the redundancy of the Complainant. In making this assertion the Respondent will have to establish that the redundancy was a genuine one and not a sham for getting rid of the Complainant. Redundancy is defined by Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) as follows:

“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to-

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,…”

The applicable passages of Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Act”) provide as follows:

(1) 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.

(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

... 

(c) the redundancy of the employee,

and…

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so-

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal,”

…

Subject to the generality of Section 6(1), Section 6(4)(c) of the 1977 Act provides that the dismissal of an employee is deemed not to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from redundancy.  As observed by Charlton J. in the leading case of JVC Europe Ltd v. Ponisi [2012] E.L.R. 70: 

“In an unfair dismissal claim, where the answer is asserted to be redundancy, the employer bears the burden of establishing redundancy and of showing which kind of redundancy is apposite.  Without that requirement, vagueness would replace the precision necessary to ensure the upholding of employee rights.” 

The legislation as interpreted by caselaw including that cited above requires the employer to

(1) establish that a genuine redundancy situation existed and if so, that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from redundancy and

(2) conduct itself reasonably throughout including adherence to fair procedures.  This includes a fair selection process and the taking of reasonable steps to identify alternative employment.  Invariably, these requirements will be inextricably linked.  Where an employer has no agreed redundancy selection policy, it is well-established in caselaw that the employer must act fairly and reasonably. 

Where an employee has been dismissed and the dismissal is found to be an unfair dismissal the employee shall be entitled to redress pursuant to Section 7 of the 1977 Act. Such redress might include re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation for any financial loss attributable to the dismissal not exceeding 104 weeks remuneration. The acts, omissions and conduct of both parties will be considered when calculating the extent of the financial loss and there is an onus on a Complainant to adopt measures to mitigate the financial/remunerative loss which includes actual loss as well as estimated prospective loss.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s redundancy resulted from the Respondent’s financial circumstances in 2024. However, I find that no evidence was provided to support this claim. The Respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence at the hearing to demonstrate that its financial position warranted the elimination of the Complainant’s role.

Furthermore, it is difficult to reconcile the selection of the Complainant’s role for redundancy, given that the Respondent advertised multiple roles within the same department approximately six weeks later.

It is significant that there is no record of any meeting minutes documenting the Respondent’s decision to make the Complainant’s role redundant. In making its decision to dismiss the Complainant by reason of redundancy, the Respondent did not:

1.      Engage in any meaningful consultation with the Complainant prior to the dismissal, thereby denying the Complainant the opportunity to respond to the proposed redundancy or suggest alternatives.

2.      Apply a fair and objective selection process, nor did it provide adequate information on the criteria used to determine which roles were to be made redundant.

3.      Consider suitable alternative employment within the hotel before proceeding with dismissal, as required by established principles of fair redundancy procedures.

4.      Provide clear, timely, and adequate communication regarding the redundancy process, reasons for selection, or the right to appeal.

5.      Demonstrate that the redundancy was genuine, in that it failed to provide sufficient evidence that the role in question was no longer required or that the redundancy was necessitated by business exigencies.

I find that the Complainant’s dismissal was neither fair nor transparent. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations to act reasonably and in accordance with fair procedures in effecting the dismissal by reason of redundancy. In particular, the following shortcomings are noted:

a)      The Complainant was not given adequate notice of the meeting held on 04 August 2024

b)      The purpose of the meeting—namely, to inform the Complainant of the termination of his employment effective 08 August 2024—was not communicated in advance

c)      The Complainant was not advised of his right to be accompanied or represented at the meeting

d)      The Complainant was not placed on notice that the Respondent was considering redundancies within the hotel

e)      The Complainant was not informed that he was at risk of redundancy

f)       There was no consultation process undertaken with the Complainant

g)      There was no redundancy policy or clear process applied by the Respondent

h)      No consideration appears to have been given to possible alternatives to redundancy

i)       The Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to make representations or proposals to avoid redundancy

j)       The Complainant was not provided with any opportunity to appeal the decision to terminate his employment.

When the Respondent’s decision is objectively analysed in light of the shortcomings outlined above, it becomes indisputable that the dismissal was neither valid nor fair. The absence of supporting evidence from the Respondent, coupled with the failure of the decision-maker and other key witnesses to attend and provide testimony at the WRC hearing, demonstrates a clear disregard for due process. This conduct reflects not only procedural shortcomings but also an unequivocal and serious breach of the Respondent’s legal obligations.

I find that the dismissal of the Complainant constituted a sham redundancy, executed in a manner that was both ruthless and dishonest, with no regard for the personal impact on the Complainant. The purported redundancy served merely as a pretext to justify the dismissal.

I am further strengthened in my decision that the redundancy was not genuine, as the Respondent failed to follow fair procedures in effecting the dismissal.   In light of all the circumstances presented, I find the complaint to be well-founded.

Redress:

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint my decision is that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. In considering the appropriate remedy, I note that the parties’ preferred remedy is compensation.

In deciding on the level of compensation to award I note that the Complainant has been out of work since 08/08/2024. I am not satisfied that the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate his ongoing loss have been reasonable.

The Complainant submitted that he is seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to give plausible evidence on mitigation of loss. While he made some efforts to mitigate his loss, I am not satisfied that he approached this with the resolve that is set out in the case of Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Ltd (UD858/1999), where it stated:

“a claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work.  It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work.  The time that a claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.” 

This means that a claimant cannot simply fold his arms and wait for compensation to accrue.  He must take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, including actively seeking alternative employment and maintaining records to show such efforts. In the present case, the Complainant failed to demonstrate a sustained or well-documented attempt to secure new employment, and this must be taken into account in any assessment of compensation.

I have had regard to section 7(2)(a) of the 1977 Act which provides that in determining the amount of compensation payable regard shall be had to “the extent (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employer,”

I also have regard to the Labour Court decision in the case of Obasanjo Olajubu v Wasdell Europe UDD 2449 where it was highlighted that: 

”An award of compensation must be in an amount that is ‘just and equitable in all the circumstances”. These words provide the Court with some latitude in considering both mitigating and aggravating factors in the circumstances surrounding the dismissal”.

Considering all of the foregoing I award the Complainant compensation of €26,000, which takes into account and allows for the payment of €8,002 already made and a further deduction in lieu of the limited efforts made by the Complainant to mitigate his loss. I deem this award to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00068173-001: I have decided that this complaint is well-founded.  I order that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €3,440 representing four week’s remuneration which I consider to be a just and equitable sum having regard to all the circumstances in this case.

CA-00068173-002: I have decided that this complaint is well-founded.  I award the Complainant compensation of €26,000, which takes into account the payment of €8,002 already made and a further deduction in lieu of the limited efforts made by the Complainant to mitigate his loss. I deem this award to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

Dismissal: redundancy.  Fair procedures.