UDD2533

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037708 (CA-00048926-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 28 March 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 June 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by HYPH Ireland Limitedagainst an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (“the Acts”) in a claim taken by Mr Michael Kiely that he was unfairly dismissed. 

The Adjudication Officer held that Mr Kiely’s complaint was well-founded and awarded him compensation of €440,000.  HYPH Ireland Limited has appealed that decision to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court conducted a hearing of the appeal on 11 June 2025, at which the parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present to it any evidence relevant to the appeal.

In this Decision the parties are referred to as they were at first instance. Hence, Mr Michael Kiely is referred to as “the Complainant” and HYPH Ireland Limitedas the “the Respondent”.

1. Company Background

The Complainant was founder and chairman of Xhail Ireland Limited (now HYPH Ireland Limited).

HYPH is a social platform whichallows users to create original songs by taking music from the app’s library and customizing it by adding instrumentals or a voice recording of them singing. HYPH Ireland Limited is part of a complex corporate structure involving several entities.

In 2013 the Complainant founded Score Music Limited (renamed Xhail Ireland Limited in May 2021). Xhail Ireland Limited (formerly Score Music Interactive Limited) is the sole shareholder of Xhail IPH Limited (formerly Score Music Productions Limited) and Xhail Inc (a Californian registered company).

In July 2020 Xhail AB acquired all shares in Xhail Ireland Limited. All shareholders, including the Complainant, were allocated shares in Xhail AB.

Xhail AB is the sole shareholder of Xhail Ireland Limited and Xhail (USA) Inc (a Delaware registered company). The Irish Xhail Companies were rebranded to HYPH on 19 August 2022.

1. Summary Position of the Respondent.

The Respondent terminated the Complainant’s contract of employment on 19 November 2021.  The Respondent accepts that the dismissal was unfair, however, it submits that the compensation awarded by the Adjudication officer was excessive given the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and the Complainant’s actions thereafter.

The Complainant founded Score Music Interactive (later renamed Xhail Ireland Limited) in 2013. The Complainant relocated to Los Angeles in 2017, where he was paid $123,000 and a $74,000 annual overseas allowance. The Complainant’s responsibilities included setting up the US office in Los Angelos, building a sales team, enhancing patent protections, and securing capital investment. He worked under an E2 visa which allowed him to be employed by a US company.

The Complainant returned to Ireland in March 2020 and had difficulty returning to the US due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. After Xhail AB’s acquisition in July 2020, a new management team was introduced. The Complainant was given the title of CIO and negotiated new financial arrangements which included two loan agreements to be deducted from his salary. The first loan for $210,000 was for a one-year lease on a house in West Hollywood. The second loan for $60,000 was for furniture. He defaulted on the $60,000 loan and failed to repay the $210,000 loan after leaving the US. The outstanding amount of $231,000 is subject to separate litigation in the US.

In November 2021, the company discovered that the Complainant had re-entered the US on a B1 visa, which does not permit employment. Having received advice that employing the Complainant under a B1 visa was illegal, his employment was terminated on 19 November 2021.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant failed to mitigate his losses which should significantly reduce the compensation awarded. He remained in the US until May 2022 despite being unable to work legally. The Complainant admitted that he did not apply for any jobs and has provided no documentary evidence of job-seeking efforts. He claimed his role was entrepreneurial and not easily replaceable.

The Complainant operated a holiday rental business in Ireland but made no effort to make it viable. He attended a retreat in July 2022 without access to communication, further limiting job-seeking. The Complainant made no meaningful efforts to find alternative employment within his field of music production, where no contractual restrictions applied.

The Respondent submits that the compensation awarded is excessive and unjustified given the Complainant’s failure to seek alternative employment, his decision to remain in the US despite visa restrictions, his lack of effort to establish a viable business, his unpaid loans and pre-paid accommodation and his absence during a retreat, which further hindered job-seeking.

Any compensation award must be “just and equitable” and consider the employee’s efforts to mitigate loss. The Respondent relies on Sheehan v. Continental Administration Co Ltd (UD858/1999), Access IT CLG v. Andrea Galgey (UDD2242), St John of God Hospital v. Catherine McDowell (UDD2238) and Doyles Veg Prep Ltd v. Petru Fodor (UDD2237) in support of the principle that a compensation award must reflect actual efforts to mitigate loss, and failure to do so warrants a reduction.

1. Summary Position of the Complainant

The Complainant, who is in his late 50s, has extensive experience in the music industry. He created the concept, software, and business model upon which the Respondent company was built. The company would not exist without his innovation, investment, and effort.

The Complainant’s dismissal was not only unfair but deeply personal. He seeks reinstatement or, alternatively, re-engagement in circumstances where it is accepted that his dismissal was unfair. Reinstatement is appropriate given his foundational role in the company. If reinstatement or re-engagement is not granted, the Act allows up to 104 weeks’ remuneration for financial loss due to unfair dismissal. The Complainant’s salary was $14,769.23 per fortnight. His losses are directly attributable to the Respondent’s conduct and compensation should reflect what is “just and equitable.”

The Complainant’s position was not a typical employment role and finding alternative work was not feasible due to the unique nature of his contributions and the circumstances of his removal.  The Complainant’s contract of employment included a restrictive non-compete clause, which barred him from engaging in any competing business for 12 months post-termination unless the company granted written consent. He sought permission in February 2022 to start a new company, which was denied by Mr. Max Renard, a representative of HYPH.

The Respondent engaged in prolonged discussions with the Complainant under the guise of resolving the dispute, which yielded no resolution. The Complainant feared litigation if he breached the non-compete clause. He was subjected to relentless litigation, character attacks, and manipulation by company leadership, particularly Max Renard.

Due to the non-compete clause, he was unable to work in his field from November 2021 until November 2022. During this time, he operated a small holiday business in County Clare, earning approximately €10,000, and produced a music album for a New York artist, earning $2,000. He did not receive social welfare during this period.

After the non-compete clause expired, the Complainant pursuing opportunities in his industry, as evidenced by signed NDAs. Between January and May 2023, he earned around €3,000. His total financial loss from November 2021 to May 2023 is estimated at 460,000 euro.

The Complainant was not merely the founder and chairman of Xhail Ireland Limited but also CEO and chairman of the entire group. His wife’s company, MDMK Limited, initially held 100% of the shares, were diluted over time. At the time of dismissal, MDMK held 15%, making it the largest shareholder.

1. Testimony of the Complainant

The Complainant worked for many years as a composer for TV and video and as a cover musician. In 2013, he developed a software algorithm which protects artists and rights holders. He filed patents and was the sole inventor of all patents granted. He established a company and assigned the patents to the company for €1 in July 2013.

The Complainant relocated to the US to access investment funding. The US entity was called Xhail and Max Renard came on board as “Group CEO” in 2019. The Complainant remained as CEO of the Irish entity, reporting into the Group CEO. They had very good working relations.

On 18 November 2021, he met the Group CEO, at a bar in Boston. They had argued earlier that day about the Group CEO wanting more equity in the company. Instead of apologising for his behaviour, the Group CEO was abusive and threatened the Complainant and his wife. He reported that matter to Anders Thorsell, a member of the Board of Directors, and requested that the Group CEO’s aggressive behaviour be discussed by the Board. 

The following day, on landing in Los Angeles, he received an email from the CFO, Steve Gallucci, terminating his employment due to an issue with his visa status, which was a complete fabrication. He held a legal B-1 visa, which allowed him to engage in certain activities such as research and development but prohibited him from conducting sales. He was ousted for standing up to a bully. At the next Board meeting, he was removed as Chairman of the Board.

The Complainant stayed in the US until May 2022, at the company’s request to try resolve matters. He had several conversations with the Group CEO in December. The company sought further meetings in January and February. At a meeting on 17 February 2022, the Complainant sought permission to be released from the non-compete clause so that he could continue working. The Respondent refused and the meeting broke down. The company instigated litigation against him in Delaware. He instigated litigation against the company in California. In his view the IP was worth $250 million, at that time. The Complainant and his wife were significant shareholders.  He is still registered as the inventor, but the company has tried to erase him by removing his name from the patents.

The Complainant returned to Ireland in May 2022, as his wife was ill.  The company sent an envoy to Ireland for further meetings in May 2022. He did everything to restore his position. Everyone was leaning on the Group CEO to settle. He believed those who told him that they wanted to restore relations and re-instate him.

His focus during this time was on securing income. He could not seek employment in the same industry that he had worked in for the previous eight years because of the non-compete clause, which did not expire until November 2022. He could not return to work as a wedding singer, as it would take years to re-establish himself in that area. It would take a year or so to get back into production work.

The Complainant had purchased an Airbnb style house with his wife in County Clare in October 2021, but the purchase was tied into a contract with the Mariott Hotel to provide accommodation to US guests. There was a year remaining on that lease and travel from the US was limited due to the Ukrainian War and Covid. He attended an Earth Song retreat every year and did so from 30 June to 16 July 2022. 

After November 2022, his focus was on researching new technologies and filing new patents to start up a new company. He started contacting companies and other parties contacted him. The Complainant referred to two documents as evidence that he was actively engaged in developing business interests during this time. He set up a new company as soon as he could secure funding. The Complainant losses were confined to the period from when his employment ended in November 2021 up to 1 May 2023, when the new company was incorporated.  His total earnings were €12,000.

The Complainant’s salary with the Respondent was $14,769.23 per fortnight, as set by the CFO, Steve Gallucci. The Group CEO instigated legal proceedings about a $260,000 loan for accommodation, which the Complainant has contested as the company directors agreed to pay his accommodation costs, when he and his wife gifted their personal equity.

The dismissal had a devastating impact on his life. He was treated appallingly by the Respondent.  He lost his life’s work when he signed his invention away. He and his wife were the largest shareholder, and their shareholding was washed out, when the shareholdings were moved to a new company. 

Under cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that his salary was in 2018 was €100,000. When he relocated to the US he was paid $123,000 and an accommodation allowance. In 2020, his salary increased to $204,000 with a $74,000 accommodation allowance. By May 2021, his housing allowance was increased $15,000 per month.

The Complainant refuted that he entered into a loan agreement for $210,000. He said that the CFO, Steve Gallucci, had concerns about paying rent for a house with a swimming pool in case the shareholders were sued. To remove that risk he was given an increase in salary. He never sought to borrow money from the company.

The Complainant agreed that conversations in December 2021 with the Group CEO were about the purchase of shares as a settlement rather than direct employment. He said that such a settlement would have helped mitigate his loss. He was led to believe that the Respondent would come to an arrangement to allow him to continue work for the company. The details were to be ironed out.

The Complainant sought the consent of the Board verbally and in writing to continue working. When asked if it was reasonable for the company to deny him permission to work with patents they owned, the Complainant said the company may own the patent but cannot deny that he invented it. The company was trying to erase him.

The Complainant accepted that he worked in a very niche part of the music industry. He had no formal qualifications. He accepted that he did not make any efforts to produce music during this time. He accepted that he did not have any other documentation to support his contention that he was actively seeking to mitigate his losses during this period.

1. Testimony of Crevan Higgins – Group CFO

Mr Crevan Higgins joined the company in 2017 as a financial controller and is now Group CFO. He processed payments to the Complainant up to March 2021. The Complainant’s initial salary was €100,000 in 2018. When he relocated to the US his salary was converted into dollars and his rent grossed up to ensure that he was not out of pocket. His package was $123,000 + $74,000 dollars.

In March 2021, the CFO, Steve Gallucci implemented a new payroll system in the US. The Complainant’s salary was $204,000 and a housing allowance, which combined amounted to $384,000.

Under cross examination, Mr Higgins said that an entry relating to “regular earnings” on the Complainant’s pay slips referred to taxable remuneration paid to the Complainant every fortnight. Mr Higgins agreed that clause 18.2 restricted the complainant from engaging with prospective customers. He could not comment on other aspect of the clause, as he was not a lawyer.

1. Deliberations - Substantive matter

The Respondent accepts that the company did not follow fair procedures in terminating the Complainant’s employment and that, as a result, the dismissal was not fair. The Respondent’s appeal to the Labour Court is concerned solely with the quantum of the award of compensation made by the Adjudication Officer.

Having regard to the Respondent’s stated position, the Court finds that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded.

1. Redress

Section 7(1) of the Act provides that where an employee is unfairly dismissed, the employee is entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the Labour Court considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

(a) re-instatement by the employer of the employee in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal, or

(b) re-engagement by the employer of the employee either in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal or in a different position which would be reasonably suitable for him on such terms and conditions as are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances”

In this case, where there is ongoing litigation between the parties in other fora, it is the Court’s judgement that the remediesof reinstatement or reengagement are not appropriate forms of redress, and that an award of compensation is the most appropriate remedy.

1. Compensation Award

The purpose of any award of compensation for unfair dismissal is to compensate for financial losses actually incurred because of the dismissal. There is no provision for including an amount intended as a punitive award.

Section 7(3) of the Act defines financial loss as follows:

“In this section— “financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to [2014], or in relation to superannuation;

“remuneration” includes allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.”

The Complainant’s remuneration (paid to him in US dollars) at the date of termination is disputed.

The Complainant contends that his fortnightly salary was $14,769.23, as evidenced by his last payslip covering the period from 31 October 2021 to 13 November 2021 (of $384,000 per annum). The Complainant’s evidence was that his salary was set by the (then) Group CFO, Mr Steve Gallucci.

The Respondent disputes that figure. Mr Crevan Higgins (the current Group CFO) accepted that the Complainant was paid $384,000 annually. His evidence was that the annual payment comprised two elements - a salary of $204,000 and a mechanism to facilitate the repayment of loan agreement. The Court heard that the purpose of the loan agreement was to facilitate an upgrade in the Complainant’s accommodation, to be repaid via the payroll system. The Complainant disputes that he entered into a loan agreement with the Respondent. The Court notes that matter is the subject of separate litigation in another jurisdiction. 

No documentary evidence of an agreement between the parties providing for a base salary of $204,000 per annum was opened to the Court. Mr Steve Gallucci did not attend the Court hearing to rebut the Complainant’s assertion that his salary was set at $384,000 per annum in 2021.  Payslips submitted to the Court, which covered the period from 25 July 2021 to 13 November 2021 record the Complainant’s “regular” gross pay to be $14,769.23. A section on the payslip relating to “voluntary deductions” records a deduction $3,771.56 relating to a “loan”. No agreement providing for the deduction of payments from the Complainant’s “regular earnings” in relation to a loan or any other matter was opened to the Court.

Based on the undisputed payslips provided, which state the Complainant’s “gross earnings” to be $14,769.23 for 80 hours paid every two weeks, the Court finds the Complainant was entitled to receive a salary of $14,769.23 per fortnight. This amounts to an annual salary of $384,000.

The Complainant’s evidence was that his losses were confined to the period from when his employment was terminated on 19 November 2021 to 1 May 2023, when he established a new company. Accordingly, the Court assess the financial loss suffered by the Complainant in the seventeen-month period from the date of his dismissal on 19 November 2021 to 1 May 2023 to be circa $544,000.

1. Determining compensation payable

In determining the amount of compensation payable under the Act the Court is obliged to consider several different factors. Section 7(2) of the Act sets out as follows: -

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to—

(a) 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,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the said financial loss was attributable to an action, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employee,

(c) the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid,

(d) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister,

(e) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the said section 14, and

(f) the extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal.”

The Court is obliged to consider the extent to which any financial loss incurred was attributable to an act, omission, or conduct, on the part of the employer or on the part of the employee. In determining the amount of compensation payable, the Court is also obliged under s.7(2) (c) of the Act to look at steps taken by the Complainant to mitigate his loss when his employment ended.

It is accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed in contravention of the Act. However, the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate his loss did not meet the relevant test as set out in UD858/1999 Sheehan v Continental Administration where the Employment Appeals Tribunal stated as follows: -

“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 time to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss”.

The Court observes that in Sheehan the Tribunal went on to state that in considering the element of mitigation under section 7 (2)(c) it is necessary to establish:

1. “What steps (if any) the Claimant took to lessen the losses sustained;
2. Were the steps so taken, reasonable, adequate, and sufficient; and
3. Ought the Claimant to have taken other steps, not necessarily obvious steps, which a reasonably careful and reasonably prudent employee, would have taken?”

The Tribunal noted that “the issue is not a question of what the Claimant could have done, but rather what he could reasonably have been expected to do”.  Furthermore, it is for the Respondent to show that a complainant did not act reasonably in all the circumstances to minimise his loss.

The Respondent asserts that the Complainant did not engage in sufficient efforts to mitigate his loss.

The Complainant remained in the United States

The Respondent submits that it is highly relevant that the Complainant knowingly remained in the U.S. for a six-month period until May 2022 on a visa which restricted his ability to engage in full employment and so mitigate his losses.

The Complainant’s evidence was that he remained in the U.S. at the behest of the Respondent and engaged in several meetings with representatives from the company during that time with a view to resolving matters and mitigating his losses. He stated that when he returned to Ireland an envoy from the company was sent to Ireland to meet with him in a further effort to resolve matters. No evidence was presented by the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s evidence.

The Court found the Complainant to be a credible witness and accepts his evidence that he remained in the United States, at the behest of the Respondent.  On the evidence presented, the Court finds that it was reasonable for the Complainant to remain in the United States and focus his efforts on resolving matters in dispute with the Respondent. Given his level of remuneration as a CEO of the Irish entity, it was not unreasonable for him to take the view that such an approach was the best way for him to mitigate his remuneration losses at that time. 

Non-Compete Clause

The Complainant was subject to a non-compete clause in his contract of employment, applicable for a twelve-month period after his termination date on 19 November 2021, which he contends significantly restricted his ability to mitigate his loses.

The non-compete clause stated, inter alia, as follows: - 

18.2       You covenant that you will not without the prior written consent of the Board (not to be unreasonably withhold) at anytime during the continuance of this Agreement, and for the period of 12 months (less any Garden Leave Period pursuant to clause 9.3) following your Termination Date (as defined below), howsoever arising, directly or indirectly, either alone or jointly with or on behalf of any third party and whether on your own account are as principal, partner, shareholder, director, employee, consultant or in any other capacity whatsoever:

18.2.1   engage, assist or be interested in any business, trade, concern or commercial activity competing, taking preparatory steps to compete or intending to compete with the Company or any Group Company in the prohibited area in the business,

The Complainant’s evidence was he sought permission to be released from the non-compete clause so he could continue working, but his request was refused. No evidence was to rebut that assertion.

The Complainant was CEO of the Respondent’s Irish entity. The Court accepts that the terms of his non-compete clause seriously curtailed his ability to mitigate his significant loss in the twelve-month period after his employment ended, as he could not work in the same niche sector that he had worked for the previous eight years.

The Complainant complied with the terms of the non-compete clause set out in in his contract of employment and, in the Court’s judgement, should not be penalised for doing so.

The Court heard that the Complainant mitigated his loss to the amount of €10,000 and $2,000 through his activities in Airbnb activities and music productions, respectively. The question the Court must consider is whether he could have done more to offset his loss.

The Court found the Complainant’s evidence about the challenges posed in rebuilding a name as a cover musician and music producer - such that it would mitigate his loss - to be reasonable given his inactivity in that sector for the previous 8 years. He operated a holiday rental business from which he secured circa €10,000 which offset some loss. The Court does not agree with the Respondent’s contention that the Complainant’s attendance at a 3-week retreat in July 2022 is relevant to the Court’s assessment of compensation, given that the non-compete clause was still in operation at that point.

Finally, the Respondent contends that the Complainant provided no documentary evidence of job-seeking, once his non-compete clause expired. The Court heard that the Complainant focused his efforts on researching new technologies and filing new patents. He referred the Court to two sets of documents, containing signed nondisclosure agreements with other parties (names redacted), as evidence of his efforts to develop new business interests after the non-compete clause expired. In the Court’s view, it was reasonable for the Complainant to pursue new business opportunities to mitigate his loss given his previous success at establishing a business and given the challenge in securing a position at the same level of remuneration that he enjoyed as CEO of the Respondent’s Irish entity.

The Complainant securing funding and established a new business on 1 May 2023. The Complainant’s claim for compensation is confined to the 17-month period after his employment ended. The Court concludes that the Complainant was actively involved in efforts to mitigate his loss in the period after the non-compete clause expired and that those efforts were sufficient as they obviated the need for him to seek compensation for any loss (or prospective loss) after 1 May 2023, when his new company was incorporated.

On the facts as presented in this case, and having regard to all the circumstance, the Court is of the view that the Complainant made reasonable, adequate, and sufficient efforts to mitigate his loss after his employment ended. 

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.  The obligation to mitigate loss is not the sole factor to consider when assessing an award of compensation. 

In this case, the Complainant was summarily dismissed without recourse to any fair procedures. The Court has established his loss to be $544,000.  In assessing compensation, the Court has taken into account the factors required at s.7 of the Act. The Court has taken account of the Complainant’s level of remuneration, the restrictions imposed on him by the non-compete clause of his contract of employment; his efforts to establish a new business, as well as his efforts to mitigate his loss and the income he secured up to 1 May 2023.

Weighing all these factors and having regard to all of the circumstances, the Court determines that the appropriate amount of compensation that is just and equitable in this case be $512,000 which equates to 16 months loss.

At the hearing the parties were agreeable to the Court calculating the amount of compensation to be awarded in euro by reference to the exchange rate at the start of June 2025. The conversion rate from euro to dollars on the 2 June 2025 was 1 US Dollar - 0.87 Euro.

That being to case the Court decides that the amount of compensation that is just and equitable in this case is €445,440 ($512,000 x 0.87).

1. Decision

The Court finds, for the reasons stated above, that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The appeal is well-founded.

The Court requires that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €445,440 being the amount that the Court considers just and equitable in all of the circumstances.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
ÁM	______________________
17 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.