ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00057265

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  19/06/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Complainant contends that she was unfairly dismissed when her fixed term contract was not renewed.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer on a fixed term contract from 2 January 2024 to 1 January 2025.

The Complainant submitted her complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015. 

The contract of employment which was executed by the Complainant on 6 December 2024 and by the Respondent on 11 December 2024 provided that the employment would commence on 2 January 2024 until 1 January 2025.  The contract also stated:

Subject to the continuation of DES funding for the Service, you will be awarded further fixed term contracts in line with the Protection of Employees (Fixed term) Act 2003.  The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 will not apply by reason of the expiry of the contract on that date.

As the expiration date of the contract approached, the Respondent was not in a position to offer her a further contract and she was advised by letter dated 13 December 2024 that her contract would not be renewed.

No grievance was submitted, and the Complainant’s employment ended on 1 January 2025.

It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.  She was employed under a fixed term contract and she worked for the duration of that contract.  The dismissal was not unfair to the Complainant.  It is common for fixed term contracts to not be renewed depending on funding. 

There are several clerical officers in the training centre where the Complainant was employed.  Due to staff on maternity leave and career breaks, there was a dip in numbers and the Complainant was recruited from a panel.  It is not correct for the Complainant to say she was specifically covering for any one staff member on maternity leave. 

It is denied that any person from the Respondent told the Complainant that her contract would be renewed or that she should not apply for other jobs.   She was advised in October that staff would be returning from maternity leave and that funding would not be available to renew her contract.

The Respondent relies on Section 2(2) (b) of the Act which specifically excludes the Complainant from bringing a complaint where the dismissal is on the basis solely of the expiry of her fixed term contract.

The Respondent also relies on case law The Board of Management Malahide Community School v Dawn Marie Conaty [2019] IEHC 486, Mary Smith and Longford Community Resources Company Ltd ADJ-00051436 and Eric English and Store All Logistics Ltd ADJ-00052205 where legal precedent shows the Unfair Dismissals Act does not apply.  In a further case Limerick City & County Council and Richard Moran UD/17/46 the complaint succeed as the non-renewal of the contract was due to reasons other than the expiry of the fixed term contract, i.e. performance issues.  No such performance issues arise in this case.

Evidence on affirmation was given by 3 Managers who explained the background to the funding issues, staff going on maternity leave and career breaks and the circumstances in which the Complainant was given a one-year fixed term contract.  The HR Manager stated that there is a definitive amount of resources.  When the numbers of staff go down due to maternity leave and career breaks it allows for engagement of staff on fixed term contracts.  However, when the numbers are at their complement, those on fixed term contracts cannot have their contracts renewed.  

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation.

She stated that she was hired under false pretence.  It was never disclosed to her that she was covering for maternity leave.  She alleged that by not informing her of the reason for her fixed term contract, she was not given key information.  She alleged that she was told it was the norm for fixed term contracts to be renewed. She had moved home to be closer to the job.  As a single parent she believed she was treated badly.  She stated that she had turned down 2 permanent full-time jobs and she believed that the Respondent had a moral obligation to treat her fairly. 

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant had many complaints and grievances about the way her fixed term contract came to an end.  She was understandably aggrieved when the contract was not renewed.   She was under the impression that it was only a matter of form that her contract would be renewed.

While I note the Complainant’s position, I can only be guided in my decision by the applicable law.

The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) provides:

2 (2) Subject to subsection 2A this Act shall not apply in relation to –

(b) dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose … and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser aforesaid. 

Having reviewed all the evidence and submissions in this case, I find that the dismissal of the Complainant consisted only of the expiry of the term, the contract was in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provided that the Unfair Dismissals Act does not apply.  I find the complaint to be not well founded.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   07-08-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: