Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  Haran

Hed Unity Limited

Representatives

Simon Deane JOSEPH T DEANE & ASSOCIATES

No Appearance

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-00057682-001

13/07/2023

The Respondent is a limited company having its registered offices at:

Commercial House

Millbank Business Park,

Lucan

County Dublin

K78X5W6

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as  Chief of Staff pursuant to a contract pf service from the 19th of April 2021 until he was dismissal without notice on the 14th of April 2022. 

The Complainant made a single claim: a claim pursuant to Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) (“the UDA”).

The matter was listed on a number of occasions as discussed in more detail below. The hearing on the 21st of November 2025 was conducted online pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission (“the W.R.C.”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Respondent has not engaged at any stage with the Complainant’s claim herein. There has been no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at any time when the matter was listed for hearing.

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing on the 21st of November 2025.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as it’s Chief of Staff with a commencement date of the 19th of April 2021 pursuant to a contract of employment which was signed by the Complainant but not signed by the Respondent. The Complainant’s base salary was €160,000 gross per annum, as well as private healthcare and a pension (matching 10% pension scheme), a bonus each year of between 10% and 50% of base salary, and an executive award of equity grants of 1% in the Respondent’s parent company on commencement with anti-dilution to protect the Complainant over any future funding rounds. On the 26th of  January 2022 the Complainant had a meeting with the CEO of the Respondent Liliane Huguet in Geneva and she confirmed that the Complainant’s bonus would be €80k (50% of his salary).

The Complainant was dismissed by the Respondent on a videocall with Mr. Tim Degraye and Ms. Lillian Huguet on the 14th of April 2022 on what was described as aa ‘no fault’ basis whilst he was out on sick leave. No procedures were followed. On the same date the Complainant received a letter from the Respondent terminating his employment and indicating that certain payments would be made to him no later than the 27th of April 2022.

The Complainant received his salary for the month of April 2022. Thereafter on the 29th of April 2022 the Complainant received a sum of €20,000 directly into his bank account. This payment was not accompanied by a payslip or any other explanation as to what it represented. The Complainant received no further payments from the Respondent.

Following his dismissal the Complainant was unable to source alternative work until September 2022 when he went to work for an agency providing company secretarial and related services to its clients. The Complainant stated that his average yearly earnings from this employment have been approximately €85,000 per annum. The Complainant continues in this employment. He said that he considered it extremely unlikely that his earnings in his present or any other employment will increase substantially and certainly not to the level of €160,000 per annum. He expressed the view that the salary he was earning with the Respondent was and continues to be above market rate.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

The date of dismissal

Section 1 provides for the definition of the date of dismissal as follows:

“date of dismissal” means—

(a) where prior notice of the termination of the contract of employment is given and it complies with the provisions of that contract and of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, the date on which that notice expires.

(b) where either prior notice of such termination is not given or the notice given does not comply with the provisions of the contract of employment or the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, the date on which such a notice would have expired, if it had been given on the date of such termination and had been expressed to expire on the later of the following dates—

(i) the earliest date that would be in compliance with the provisions of the contract of employment,

(ii) the earliest date that would be in compliance with the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973,”

It was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that on any reading of the above sections, it is clear that whether notice is or is not given by an employer, the notice expires on the later date of either the contractual or the statutory notice period, which in this matter is 3 months which would mean that the complainant’s notice period expired on the 14 July 2022.

The Complainant’s contract of employment provided for a period of notice of three months. The Complainant was informed on the 14th of April 2022 that his employment was being terminated on a no-fault basis on that date. In a letter signed by Mr. Legraye on behalf of the Respondent dated the 14th of April 2022, the Complainant was advised that he would receive several payments on the termination of his employment including the sum of €40,000 in respect of his “entitlement to 3 months’ salary”. On the 29th of April 2022 the Complainant received a sum of €20,000 directly into his bank account. This payment was not accompanied by a payslip or any other explanation as to what it represented. Insofar as that payment may have represented payment in lieu of notice rather than any of the other payments promised in the letter of the 14th of April 2022, it could only have represented half of the amount which the Respondent said that it would pay in respect of his “entitlement to 3 months’ salary”. There is no evidence that the Complainant was paid in lieu of notice in accordance with his full contractual entitlement.

I find that the Complainant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect on the 14th of April 2022 in circumstances where he was entitled to contractual notice of not less than three months - which the Respondent accepted in correspondence. Although the Respondent, in that correspondence, undertook to pay to the Complainant the sum of €40,000 in lieu of notice, this amount was not paid in full to the Complainant and accordingly the unexplained and unsolicited payment of €20,000 into the Complainant’s bank account without a payslip or any other explanation cannot and does not constitute a payment in lieu of notice such as to extinguish the Complainant’s contractual notice entitlement. Applying the formula in respect of ascertaining the date of dismissal as per the definition of that term in Section 1 quoted above,  I find that the termination  did not “comply with the provisions of the contract of employment” and that accordingly the date of dismissal is the later date referred to in the definition which is the date that notice “in compliance with the provisions of the contract of employment” if given would have expired. That date is the 14th of July 2022, and I find that this is the date of dismissal for the purposes of the present claim for unfair dismissal.

Compliance with Time Limits

Section 8 (2) of the UDA (as amended) provides as follows:

“A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in [regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015]) to the Director General—

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or

(b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause”

In the present case the Complainant’s W.R.C. Complaint form was received by the W.R.C. on the 13th of July 2023. The claim was not initiated within 6 months of the date of dismissal. However, it was initiated within 12 months of that date, and an application was made on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing on the 21st of November 2025 to extend the time up to 12 months from the date of dismissal based on reasonable cause.

As to whether reasonable cause existed the following facts as submitted on behalf of the Complainant or ascertainable from correspondence are relevant:

1. The Complainant’s written contract identified an entity described as Xantic motion Limited as his employer.
2. The Complainant initiated a claim for unfair dismissal against this entity on the 11th of October 2022. That claim was assigned WRC File Reference: ADJ00042775. The Complainant directed the claim made at that time to Xantic Motion Limited on the basis that this entity, to the best of the Complainant’s then knowledge and belief was his employer.
3. A firm of solicitors wrote to the W.R.C. on the 4th of May 2023 quoting WRC File Reference: ADJ00042775. Those solicitors referred to “Our client/Respondent: Xantic Motion Limited”. Details of the claim made by the Complainant were sought in that letter.
4. On the 3rd of June 2023 the same solicitors wrote to the Complainant’s solicitors setting out a detailed substantive response to the claim for unfair dismissal made by the Complainant. That letter described the matter at issue thus:

“Re; Our Client: HED Unity Limited

Your Client: David Haran”

However on the second page of that letter, the following statement appears: “your client was employed by HED Unity Limited (formally Xantic Motion Limited)…”. The letter ran to 4 pages and nowhere in that letter was any objection made to the title of the Respondent against whom the Complainant’s complaint had been directed, namely Xantic Motion Limited.

1. File Reference ADJ00042775 was listed for hearing on the 13th of July 2023. On the 12th of July 2023 the same firm of solicitors who had delivered the detailed letter referred to above wrote to the W.R.C and copied the Complainant’s solicitors as follows:

“RE: Complainant: David Haran

Respondent: Xantic Motion Limited

Adjudication File Reference: ADJ00042775

Hearing Date: 13th July 2023

“We refer to the above matter, which is listed for hearing tomorrow, 13th July 2023.

We have no instructions in this matter. We will not be in attendance at the hearing tomorrow.

We have advised the Complainant’s representatives of our position.

Any future correspondence should be sent directly to the Respondent.”

1. At the hearing of claim Reference ADJ00042775 on the 13th of July 2023, there was no appearance by or on behalf of Xantic Motion Limited or by any other entity. That hearing was adjourned at the request of the Complainant’s solicitors who had been taken by surprise by the letter referred to above which was received on the evening before the hearing.
2. Later that same day, on the 13th of July 2023 the Complainant’s solicitors initiated the present claim for unfair dismissal against the present Respondent, HED Unity Limited having its registered offices at: Commercial House, Milbank Business Park, Lucan, County Dublin. This was done as a precautionary measure given what had occurred on the day before the hearing and on the day of the hearing on the 14th of July 2023. The Complainant sought if necessary to rely on the provisions of Section 39 subsection (4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 for leave to proceed against the present Respondent pursuant to the UDA.
3. The Complainant contended that the circumstances as outlined above constituted reasonable cause to extend the time for the present claim against HD Unity Limited  pursuant to Section 8 (2) (b) of the UDA or in the alternative that the circumstances established grounds for the making of an order pursuant to Section 39 (4) of the Organisation of Working Tiem Act 1997 granting leave to proceed against the present respondent notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit applicable to such claim.

Finding

The circumstances are most unusual in that the Complainant’s contract was with one entity: Xantic Motion Limited whereas his payslips referred to the present Respondent: HED Unity Limited. The Complainant initially elected to initiate his claim for unfair dismissal against Xantic Motion Limited as being the entity which was stated as his employer on his contract of employment. Correspondence from solicitors representing the Complainant’s employer referred to both entities and engaged with the merits of the Complainant’s claim for unfair dismissal and at no stage was the Complainant put on notice by that entity or by any servant or agent of that entity that the description of the Complainant’s employer was incorrectly stated in the original proceedings. This latter fact, in the particular circumstances of this case, establishes that there was reasonable cause which prevented the initiation of the claim within the prescribed period of six months from the date of dismissal.  Pursuant to my powers under Section 8 (2) (b) of the UDA as amended, I consider it appropriate to extend the time limit applicable to this claim up to and including the 13th of July 2023, the date of initiation of this claim and accordingly the claim is made within time.

In such circumstances no order pursuant tot Section 39 (4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended) is required.

Unfair Dismissal

Statutory Provisions

Section (6) subsection (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 provides as follows:

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.

Subsection (6) places the onus on the employer to establish that the dismissal was fair (as follows:

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.

In the present case there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent and no evidence was submitted purporting to justify the dismissal. I accept the uncontroverted evidence of the Complainant that he was dismissed from his employment as alleged. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6 (1) the dismissal is deemed unfair, and it follows that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Redress for Unfair Dismissal

Section 7 subsection (1) (c) of the UDA provides for an award of compensation for unfair dismissal in respect of losses attributable to the dismissal not exceeding an amount equivalent to 104 weeks’ remuneration.

The Complainant’s uncontroverted evidence, his contract of employment and the payslips provided in evidence establish that the Complainant was paid the sum of €3,076.92 per week during his employment. The Complainant was not paid in lieu of his contractual notice, and I also note that a bonus was promised and equity shares were also discussed. However, there is no evidence that any of these alleged entitlements were actually paid to the Complainant and thus they cannot be included as remuneration for the purposes of assessing compensation for loss attributable to the dismissal.   Therefore, based on the Complainant’s earnings prior to his dismissal, I determine that the Complainant’s weekly salary was in the sum of €3,076.92.

The Complainant was out of work from the date of termination until he obtained alternative employment (which he still holds) in September 2022. From that alternative employment he earns approximately €85,000 per annum or €1,634.61 per week which leaves a loss in the form of a differential shortfall as between pre and post-dismissal earnings in the sum of €1,442.31 per week.

The Complainant sustained full losses for approximately 6 weeks from the date of termination to the date when he started his alternative employment in September 2022 and thus during this period, he sustained full losses for 6 weeks (€3,076.92 x 6) giving is a total sum of €18,461.52. In addition, there are in theory differential losses in the sum of €1,442.31 per week from September 2022 up to November 2025, a period of approximately three years and six weeks, which would yield a differential loss to date (162 weeks x €1,442.31) in the sum of €233,654.26. Thus, in theory the full loss from July 2022 to November 2025 is approximately €252,115.74

I find that the Complainant has made reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss. I also accept the Complainant’s uncontroverted evidence that the market cannot sustain, and that he has been unable to achieve, a salary commensurate with the salary he earned whilst working for the Respondent. However, this situation also suggests that the Complainant’s remuneration may have been unaffordable by the Respondent from the outset. Given the fact that the Respondent appears to have ceased trading altogether, there must be a very real likelihood that even if  the Complainant had not been dismissed in the unfair (and unlawful) manner which occurred , his employment may well have been lawfully terminated by reason of redundancy or if not, then a pay reduction might have been lawfully negotiated to avoid redundancy. Either way I find on the balance of probability that the Complainant’s remuneration would not realistically have continued at the level of €160,000 per annum for the full period from the date of his dismissal to the date of the hearing without a redundancy or a pay reduction driven by market forces.  Accordingly, and doing the best that I can in relation to assessing and compensating for losses realistically I will not make an award in respect of future losses and in respect of the losses to date I will make an award in the total sum of €180,000 which I deem just and equitable in the circumstances. 

CA-00057682-001 - The Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent is directed to pay to the Complainant the sum of €180,000 by way of compensation for unfair dismissal.

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015: Section 6 (1) and (6), Section 7 (1) (c).