Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Front of House Administrator

Catering & Facilities Management

Representatives

Self

Sinead Cockram The HR Suite

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)

IR - SC - 00003691

21/01/2025

The Worker was employed by the Employer as a front of house administrator on 22nd August 2024. Her employment was terminated on 20th January 2025 and, as she has less than 12 months service, she has submitted this dispute as she believes that she was unfairly dismissed.

The Worker’s employment was terminated on the basis that she did not have the legal right to work in Ireland. She received an email on 21st January 2025 which stated that her employment is subject to her legal status to remain and work in the country. The Employer said that her visa expired on 12th January 2025 and she was therefore no longer eligible to work until the situation was resolved. The email stated that the previous day, 20th January, would be considered her last day with the Company. It further stated “your employment has been ceased”.

The Worker said that the Employer fundamentally misunderstood the visa process and that she had a right to continue working due to the legal eight week grace period which commenced on the expiry of her existing visa. This period started therefore on 12th January 2025. Despite explaining this to her Employer, and providing relevant links to a government website which clarified the situation, her employment was terminated. The Worker’s Employer insisted on a specific letter from immigration confirming her right to work but this was impossible to provide as all visa applications are handled through an online portal and direct email or phone contact with the relevant department is not available.

The Worker said that the termination caused her financial hardship and she suffered a loss of income of €6,187.50 before securing alternative employment. In addition to losing her salary, she lost out on benefits such as daily meals that were provided and online medical services. The financial loss relating to meal benefits was stated to be €660. She was forced to use all of her savings which amounted to €3,643.54 and take a loan of €2,000. She incurred credit card expenses of €500 and all of her expenses were subject to interest and inflation which she estimated at €300. In all, the Worker was asking for compensation of €10,000 to cover her losses, repay debts and restore financial stability.

The Worker had initially been seeking re-instatement, but as she has since secured alternative employment, the remedy she is asking for is compensation.

The Employer accepts that the way the Worker’s case was handled was not best practice. It was said that they did act in good faith, but that a more rigorous process should have been followed and it was not in this case. The HR representative who had dealt with this particular case was no longer with the company, however the Employer provided a copy of its policy document titled “Employment Checks Policy” and acknowledged that this policy had not been followed in this instance.

The Employer apologised to the Worker for failure to properly implement its policy on this occasion.

The Employer submitted that the Worker had fulfilled her duty to mitigate her loss, however said that ordinary living expenses do not fall within the scope of the WRC’s jurisdiction for this dispute. Awards are intended to compensate for loss of earnings directly attributable to the dismissal, rather than to cover personal subsistence or general household expenses.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Employer in this case accepts that its policy was not followed on this occasion. A robust policy does exist, but there was a complete failure to implement it in this Workers case. This means that fair procedures were not applied to the termination of the Worker’s employment.

The Worker was advised at the end of her shift on 20th January 2025 that the evidence that she had provided was not being accepted as proof of her right to work. She received an email the following day, 21st January 2025, to the effect that her employment was terminated as of the previous day. This is in direct contradiction to the Employer’s policy which provides for a two week period of unpaid suspension until valid documentation can be provided, followed by a preliminary formal meeting to which a worker may bring representation. A further one week period is provided for under the policy before a worker is invited to a formal meeting at which point the employment may be terminated, with a right of appeal within 5 working days. The Worker advised that she received her visa renewal on 12th February 2025. Had the Employer’s process been followed, she would have received her documentation within the period of that process and remained in employment.

The Employer’s conduct in this matter is most unsatisfactory, although an apology to the Worker was noted and appreciated. The Worker in this case was given no notice of the termination of her employment, which occurred in complete contradiction to the policy in place and in breach of all fair procedures.

It is therefore my recommendation that the Worker receives compensation for her unfair dismissal. I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker €9,000.

Failure to apply fair procedures