ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00049343

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  31/07/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/orSection 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.

Background:

The complaint is that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. 

Section 41(14)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

(b) In publishing a decision under paragraph (a), an adjudication officer may determine that, due to the existence of special circumstances, information that would identify the parties in relation to whom the decision was made should not be published by the Commission.

I have decided to anonymise this decision due to special circumstances of this case, including the fact that no evidence was adduced in relation to the substantive matter. 

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent wishes to acknowledge that, upon review of the circumstances surrounding the Complainant’s dismissal, the process fell short of the standards required by the principles of natural justice and fair procedures. Accordingly, the Respondent concedes that the dismissal, as effected, was procedurally unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 (as amended).

This concession is made strictly without prejudice to the Respondent’s entitlement to make full submissions under section 7 of the Acts, including in respect of the Complainant’s contribution to the circumstances giving rise to the dismissal, any failure on her part to mitigate her loss, and the appropriate form and extent of redress, if any.

In light of the Respondent’s concession as to procedural unfairness, it is respectfully submitted that the evidential burden now rests with the Complainant pursuant to section 7 of the Acts. The Respondent therefore submits that the hearing should be confined to matters relevant to contribution and mitigation of loss. Subject to the Adjudicator’s direction, it is proposed that the hearing proceed on that limited basis, in the interests of procedural efficiency and to ensure the timely and cost-effective conduct of the proceedings.

The background to the dismissal was the Complainant was dismissed following a meeting on 3 November 2023 with her Line Manager and the HR Manager.  Following this meeting, a letter was issued to the Complainant confirmed the Respondent’s conclusion that the matter constituted gross misconduct, justifying summary dismissal. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant in lieu of notice, along with any outstanding annual leave, with payment to be made in the next payroll. The effective date of termination was confirmed as Friday, 3 November 2023 and the Respondent stated in writing in the follow up letter of 6 November 2023, the Complainant’s right to appeal. The Complainant appealed the decision and the appeal was heard by a HR Consultant.

As outlined, the Respondent concedes that the dismissal of the Complainant was procedurally unfair, having regard to the failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice and the requirements set out in S.I. No. 146/2000 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.

The Respondent does however respectfully submit that, notwithstanding the procedural irregularity, had fair and proper procedures been adhered to, the Respondent would have proceeded to take disciplinary action in accordance with part (iv) of the Complainant’s employment contract and proceeded to dismiss her for gross misconduct. Nonetheless, the matter now falls to be considered under section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, specifically in relation to the issues of contribution and mitigation of loss, if any.

MITIGATION OF LOSSES

The Respondent submits that reinstatement or re-engagement is not appropriate in this case. It is understood that the Complainant has since secured alternative employment. In such circumstances, reinstatement or re-engagement would neither be practicable nor consistent with the factual reality of the Complainant’s current employment status. Accordingly, the only remaining form of redress for consideration is compensation under section 7(1)(c) of the Acts.

Pursuant to section 7 (1) (c) (i) of the Acts, compensation may only be awarded in respect of financial loss attributable to the dismissal, as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. In other words, compensation may not exceed the losses suffered by the Complainant post dismissal. In cases where no financial loss is shown, section 7 (1) (c) (ii) of the Acts, provides that any compensatory award shall not exceed four weeks’ remuneration.

The Respondent therefore requests that, should compensation be considered appropriate, it be assessed solely on the basis of actual financial loss incurred (if any) and subject to the statutory limits and mitigation principles set out under section 7 of the Acts.

Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the fact that the Complainant has regained new employment, the Respondent’s submits that the Complainant upon termination was paid an ex gratia sum of €6,136.72 gross. It is respectfully submitted that this amount be duly accounted for and any compensatory award be reduced accordingly.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted that she had been unfairly treated by being dismissed and that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh.  Evidence of seeking employment since her dismissal was submitted.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Respondent acknowledges that the process of dismissal fell short of the standards required by the principles of natural justice and fair procedures and concedes that the dismissal, as effected, was procedurally unfair within the meaning of the Acts.

It was established that the Complainant secured alternative employment on a higher salary on 4 April 2024.  Solicitor for the Complainant sought compensation for the full period 3/11/2023 to 4/4/2024.  Solicitor for the Respondent contends that losses should only be calculated from 2/1/2024, which stems from evidence of seeking employment, and that the ex-gratia payment should be taken into account.

I note that the Complainant registered with an employment agency immediately following the termination of her employment and I find this constituted immediate action to mitigate her losses.        I find that the appropriate compensation is for full losses minus the ex-gratia payment.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and compensation is the appropriate remedy.                     I award the Complainant the sum of €10,016 compensation for her unfair dismissal.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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 findings and reasons above, I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and I award her compensation of €10,016.

Dated:   12-09-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: