Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tally Hatzakis

Trilateral Research Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Mark Walsh, Kenny Stephenson Chapman solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066693-001

14/10/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 17th July 2017. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time employee. While the parties agree that notice of termination of the Complainant’s employment was issued on 17th July 2024, the manner and nature of the termination constituted the subject matter of the hearing.

On 14th October 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that she was summarily dismissed by the Respondent without notice and without recourse to any form of procedure. By response, the Respondent denied that the Complainant had been dismissed at all and submitted that the contract of employment had terminated by mutual consent.

A hearing in relation to this matter was initially convened for 9th May 2025. At the outset of this hearing, a representative for the Respondent request that the matter be adjourned as they had not been notified of the same. On investigation, it was determined that the notice of hearing had been issued to the Respondent’s registered address but had not been forwarded to Respondent itself. In circumstances whereby the Respondent had been properly notified of the hearing, the adjournment was not granted on this basis. Notwithstanding the same, on consideration of the Complainant’s submission, it became apparent that the evidence of the Chief Executive of the Respondent was crucial to the investigation of the complaint. In these circumstances, the matter was adjourned to allow for the attendance of this witness and to facilitate that exchange of submissions on this point. The hearing was duly re-convened for 28th July 2025 and subsequently finalised on that date. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, the Complainant stated that she did not receive the Respondent’s submission in accordance with the WRC’s guidelines and the direction of the Adjudicator at the previous hearing. On enquiry the Complainant stated that she was anxious to have the matter finalised and stated that she wished for the matter to proceed. In order to prevent any disadvantage to the Complainant, she was permitted to issue a submission in relation to non-evidentiary matters following the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaint while the Chief Executive of the Respondent gave evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or affirmation and was opened to the opposing side for cross examination.

Initially, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not engaged in a contract of employment, and a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction was raised on this point. Prior to the resumed hearing, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant was their employee and jurisdiction was accepted on this basis. Thereafter, the Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction in circumstances whereby they submitted that no dismissal occurred at all. Given the nature of the application, the same will considered following a summary of the relevant evidence.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 7th July 2017. Her employment contract described her as an “in-house consultant”, and in testimony, the Complainant stated she was engaged as a researcher for various high-level product projects on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant primarily worked remotely and often operated on her own initiative, both in identifying projects and seeing same through to completion. The Complainant stated that she completed all assigned tasks to a high standard, and that at no point during her employment were any issues raised concerning her work performance.

On 17th July 2024, the Respondent’s Chief Executive emailed the Complainant regarding an incident concerning her payroll. The Complainant explained that, due to a cyber-attack on the Respondent's payroll facilities, her wages had not been correctly paid for a period of time. In this context, the Chief Executive suggested a remote meeting that day to discuss the matter. No other agenda or topics were mentioned in the email inviting the Complainant to this meeting, which the Complainant assumed would be an informal discussion about her unpaid wages.

When the Complainant attended the meeting, numerous matters were discussed that she was not previously notified of or prepared to address. Specifically, various vague allegations were levelled against the Complainant regarding purported communication issues and vague “unmet expectations”. The Complainant was not provided with the specifics of these complaints, any supporting statements, nor were the concerns clearly defined in any way.

During this meeting, following a brief discussion on these points, the Respondent's managing director stated that the Complainant’s contract of employment should be terminated and immediately gave notice of the termination of her employment. This took the Complainant entirely by surprise. She had not been notified of any issues concerning her work standard, disciplinary matters, or any other topics that might potentially lead to her termination.

Regarding the meeting itself, the Complainant stated that she was not told its true purpose, that she had no opportunity to prepare or bring representation, that she was denied proof of the points of contention raised and she was denied the opportunity for mediation to discuss the matters outlined. Consequently, she stated that her dismissal during this meeting was essentially an ambush, leaving her unprepared and unable to counter the allegations.

While deeply concerned about the nature of her summary dismissal, the Complainant stated in evidence that she wished to remain on professional terms with the Respondent, given the small size of her industry, and because she hoped to continue some of her projects following her dismissal. To this end, the Complainant stated she corresponded with the Chief Executive after her dismissal in an attempt to retain some of her intellectual property rights and continue some of her projects in future employment. The Complainant stated that this correspondence in no way evidenced her acceptance of her dismissal, nor did it indicate the dismissal was fair. She reiterated that she was unfairly summarily dismissed during the meeting on 17th July 2024, without any procedure or adherence to the normal fair rights and processes normally expected in such matters.

Regarding the Respondent's submission, the Complainant absolutely denied that she resigned during the meeting. She stated that no words of resignation were spoken or written at any point. The Complainant maintained that a resignation must be explicit, unambiguous and voluntary. She stated there was no mutual agreement to terminate her employment, re-stating that termination cannot be treated as consensual and must be issued in clear, voluntary terms. She stated that during the meeting in question, she was shocked, ambushed, and never negotiated or agreed to severance. She stated the termination was a unilateral act by management. She was required to leave shortly after the meeting, hand over equipment, and her email addresses were blocked, with 19th July being designated as her final work date. She confirmed she provided no letter of resignation or any written communication indicating she had resigned her employment.

In light of the foregoing, the Complainant stated she was unfairly dismissed during the meeting on 17th July 2024. She stated this dismissal was confirmed in writing by the Respondent in an email shortly after the meeting. She maintained she was not dismissed on any grounds deemed fair by the Act. While some vague issues were raised during the meeting, none of these allegations were substantiated, much less proven. Based on the totality of the foregoing points, the Complainant stated that her dismissal was unfair for the purposes of the present Act and, consequently, submitted that her complaint should be considered well-founded.

By response, the Respondent denied that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed, or that she had been dismissed at all within the meaning of the Act. In this regard, they submitted that the Complainant’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement during the meeting of 17th July 2024.

The Respondent's Chief Executive accepted that he met with the Complainant remotely on 17th July 2024. He further accepted that the ostensible purpose of this meeting was to discuss monthly payments that were outstanding to the Complainant following a cyber-attack on the Respondent’s payroll system. During this meeting, the Chief Executive took the opportunity to discuss some matters that had arisen regarding the Complainant's level of communication with her colleagues. The Chief Executive stated neither the content of this discussion or the discussion itself formed part of a disciplinary procedure. Rather stated that as part of his management function, he was obligated to notify the Complainant of certain issues that came to his attention. This discussion occurred on an informal basis as the Chief Executive had hoped to resolve same during the meeting.

In the course of the meeting, it became apparent that a certain level of frustration had accumulated on both sides of the employment relationship. In this regard, the Chief Executive stated in discussion the issues both parties encountered by virtue of the employment relationship, that the Complainant stated that the parties should "cut it now." In evidence, the Chief Executive started that his clear understanding of the import of this phrase was that the Complainant wished to terminate the employment relationship. The Chief Executive agreed to this proposal and stated that he accepted that Complainant’s notice to terminate the contract.

Thereafter, the parties discussed the handover of the Complainant's work and the manner of communication regarding the finalisation of the Complainant's contract. In the days following this discussion, the Complainant and the Chief Executive exchanged a number of emails discussing the Complainant's ongoing projects and the manner in which these were to be handled following her departure. The Chief Executive stated that these emails were cordial and friendly in nature and that the Respondent engaged with the Complainant constructively to minimise any reputational damage that might arise from the finalisation of the employment. At no point during these communications did the Complainant raise any issue regarding her alleged dismissal, its purported abrupt nature nor did she raise any concerns regarding the nature of her alleged termination.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not dismissed, and consequently, not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Act. They stated that the two parties simply agreed by mutual agreement to end the contract of employment for their own reasons. They stated that the Complainant was entitled to take such a course of action and the Respondent was perfectly entitled to accept this proposal. In this regard, they denied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Act and stated that her complaint should be deemed to be not well-founded.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has submitted that she was summarily dismissed by the Respondent during a meeting of 17th July 2024. She stated that no procedures of any description were invoked by the Respondent and that her dismissal in this manner was fundamentally unfair towards her. By response, the Respondent denied that the Complainant had been dismissed at all and submitted that she had suggested that her contract of employment be terminated. They further submitted that the employment was terminated by mutual consent thereafter.

In this regard, Section 1 of the Act defines “dismissal” as,

“(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer, or

(c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose”

By preliminary objection, the Respondent asserted that the Complainant was not dismissed at all and that the contract of employment had terminated by mutual consent. Notwithstanding the same, it is evident that the Complainant’s contract of employment is no longer in existence and must have been terminated by either the Respondent, the Complainant or by operation of the contract itself. In this regard, the position of the Respondent was that the Complainant terminated her employment during the meeting of 17th July 2024, which was accepted by the Respondent, while the Complainant submitted that the Respondent gave notice of their intention to terminate her employment in the course of that meeting.

Having regard to the foregoing, it is apparent that a conflict of evidence exists as to the fact of the Complainant’s dismissal by the Respondent.

In the matter of In Devaney v DNT Distribution Company Ltd, UD 412/1993, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that,

“... where words are genuinely ambiguous what needs to be decided is what the speaker intended. Did the employer mean to bring the contract to an end? In answering this question, what needs to be considered is how a reasonable employee in all the circumstances would have understood the employer’s intention.”

Regarding a dispute in relation to the fact of dismissal, in the matter of Longford County Council v. Joseph McManus UDD 1753 the Labour Court held as follows,

“As a dismissal as a fact is in dispute it is for the Complainant to establish as a matter of probability that his employment came to an end in circumstances amounting to a dismissal as that term is defined.”

In this regard, a significant conflict of evidence has arisen regarding the meeting of 17th July 2024, and whether the complaint was dismissed by the Respondent in the course of the same. From the factual matrix presented by the parties, it is accepted that in advance of the meeting the Complainant raised an issue regarding the non-payment of her wages over a period of time. On foot of the same, the Chief Executive of the Respondent emailed the Complainant, proposing a meeting later that afternoon to discuss this matter. In this respect, the Complainant is correct in her assertion that this email contains no reference to any of the matters that would be subsequently discussed during this meeting and gave no indication that anything other than this issue would form the basis of the meeting. 

From the evidence of the parties, while they are at odds in relation to the ultimate outcome of the meeting, they are in agreement that, at the outset, the parties discussed the payroll issue and the manner by which it was to be resolved. Thereafter, it is apparent that the Chief Executive raised a number of matters regarding issues that had arisen regarding the Complainant's manner of communication with other managers in the business. The Complainant, in her submission, took exception to his course of events, stating that she was not put on notice of these issues being raised and stating that was she not provided with the detail of the alleged complaints themselves. In this regard, I accept the Complainant’s submission that the Chief Executive should have provided some form of detail in relation to the complaints, such as the identity of the persons that made the complaints and the nature of the same. As matters transpired, a number of vague, unsubstantiated allegations were raised against the Complainant in the course of this meeting, and the Complainant is correct in her assertion that she was not provided with an opportunity to properly challenge the same. It is further noted that these matters were discussed during a meeting where the Complainant raised a serious issue regarding the Respondent, relating to the nonpayment of her wages, one of the core tenets of her contract of employment.

The evidence of the Chief Executive was that following this discussion, the Complainant stated that the parties should “cut it now”, or words to that effect. By his account, he stated that the clear meaning of the same, in the context of the discussion between the parties, was that the Complainant intended to resign her employment. In evidence, the Complainant accepted that she may have said those words, but that the clear meaning of the same was that she wished to end that conversation, which she correctly deemed to be inappropriate for the reasons set out above. She further stated that the Chief Executive was the person that gave notice of the termination of her employment, effectively dismissing her in the course of the meeting.

Regarding such informal meetings, it's not at all uncommon for imprecise language to be used and for misunderstandings to arise. While such misunderstandings are not uncommon, there is an onus on the parties to correct them once it becomes apparent that the other party has misunderstood their intentions. In this regard, I note that the Chief Executive issued a near-contemporaneous email to the Complainant in the hours following the meeting, setting out, in a fair amount of detail, the matters they had discussed.

In this regard, the section relevant to the termination of employment states that,

“You agreed that it was a frustrating situation and suggested that it would perhaps be better to cut it now. I agreed and suggested that we give notice to terminate the contract, which is notice of about 7 weeks, from today’s date.”

This email corroborates the Respondent’s position that the Complainant stated that she wished to “cut it now”- a statement that could, it that context, relate to the present conversation or the employment as whole.  Thereafter, the Chief Executive stated that he agreed with the position of the Complainant, and in his view agreed that it would be best to terminate the employment as suggested by the Complainant, and on this basis engaged the notice provision of the contract. In this regard it is clear that the Chief Executive set out his position that he understood the statement “cut it now” to relate to the employment as a whole and that he believed, at the relevant time, that the Complainant wished to terminate her employment.

The correspondence goes on to state, in relation to the messaging regarding the ending of the Complainant’s employment, that,

“The message that will be shared will be very simple, that you have decided to leave us, and we will be working on a handover with you”.

At this point, it would be expected that the Complainant would challenge this interpretation and state that she had in no way intended to terminate her employment and that her employment was in fact terminated by the Respondent. As matters transpired, the Complainant did not raise any such contradiction. Rather, she engaged with the Respondent regarding her on-going projects and stated that she wished for the termination to be dealt with as a “win-win” situation for both parties. In this regard, I accept the Complainant's evidence that she wished to remain on professional terms with the Respondent, given that they operate in a small industry and that she wished to have some involvement in projects following the termination of her employment. Nonetheless, it fell to the Complainant to clarify her position once the Respondent had stated theirs. From the contemporaneous correspondence issued by the parties, it is apparent that the Complainant did not do so, and it is not unreasonable for the Respondent to assume that this lack of contradiction indicated the agreement of the Complainant to their interpretation of events.

Having regard to the accumulation of foregoing points, I find that a misunderstanding regarding the Complainant's intentions arose in the meeting of 17th July 2024. In this respect the witness for the Respondent understood a statement made by the Complainant, that was unambiguous in the contemporaneous context, to indicate her wish to resign her employment. Thereafter, the Respondent issued contemporaneous correspondence setting out their version of events that was not directly challenged by the Complainant at the relevant time.  Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Respondent did not act unreasonably in assuming the Complainant’s resignation at the meeting of 17th July 2024. As the Complainant has not advanced a complaint of constructive dismissal, I find that she was not unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, ad her complaint is deemed to be not well-founded. 

I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Fact of Dismissal, Mutual Decision, Surrounding Circumstances