Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kevin  Joyce

Ambu Limited

Representatives

 David Byrnes BL instructed by Lavelle Partners LLP

 Rosemary Mallon BL instructed by Mason Hayes and Curran LLP 

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-00073313-001

10/07/2025

The Complainant gave evidence on Oath. It was the Complainant’s case that he was summarily dismissed from his position of Territory Manager, Urology and ENT, Ireland and Northern Ireland with the Respondent, where he was employed from 1 September 2020 to 2 July 2025.  It was his evidence that he was summarily dismissed by the Respondent. 

The Respondent appeared at the hearing. It was its position that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. No evidence was provided by the Respondent. 

Submissions were exchanged in advance of the hearing and relied upon at the hearing by both parties.

Having heard the parties, I am satisfied that I have investigated the complaint fully in accordance with Section 8 (1) (c) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 19770 2015.

Preliminary Ruling 

At the outset of the hearing, an application was made on behalf of the Respondent seeking to limit the scope of the hearing to the issue of compensation under Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (the “Acts”). It was submitted that, as the Respondent had accepted that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, the circumstances giving rise to the dismissal were no longer relevant for the purposes of the hearing. It was further submitted that the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) was required to consider only the issue of financial loss, including mitigation of that loss, and any ongoing or future loss.

On behalf of the Complainant, it was submitted that the WRC was required to consider “all of the circumstances” when determining compensation, including the events leading to and surrounding the dismissal. It was argued that the conduct of the Respondent, both prior to and following the dismissal, was relevant to the assessment of compensation in accordance with Section 7(1) and the factors set out in Section 7(2) (a) – (f) of the Acts. 

Having considered the submissions of both parties, it is found that Section 7(1) of the Acts provides that where an employee is dismissed, and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, which was accepted, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever form the WRC considers appropriate, having regard to all of the circumstances as prescribed by Section 8 of the Acts. 

I am satisfied that, having considered the submissions of the parties, compensation is the most appropriate form of redress. This is particularly so in circumstances where there was a breakdown in the employment relationship, the Respondent has accepted that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, and having regard to the Complainant’s evidence as set out below.

Section 7(1)(c)(i) of the Acts , provides:

“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,”

§  It is therefore ruled that, once the dismissal had been accepted as unfair and the parties agreed compensation was the most appropriate redress, the matters remaining for determination were:

§  the financial loss incurred by the Complainant which was attributable to the dismissal;

§  the extent to which the Complainant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate that loss; and

§  any ongoing or prospective future loss arising from the dismissal.

It is also noted that, in determining the amount of compensation payable, regard must be had to the considerations set out in Section 7(2) (a) – (f) of the Acts. 

In those circumstances, it was directed that the hearing proceeded on the basis of an assessment of compensation under Section 7 (1) (c) (i) and Section 7(2) (a) – (f) of the Acts.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was employed in a senior sales role with the Respondent, earning a gross annual base salary of €81,624. It was his evidence that, in addition to his salary, he was entitled to performance related bonuses based on quarterly sales targets across two portfolios, amounting to approximately GBP£24,000 per annum, together with additional “overage” payments for sales achieved above target.

He gave evidence that he was a consistently high performing employee, stating that he was “a top performer… right from day one… exceeded the targets dramatically” and received substantial bonus payments as a result. He referred to prior years in which he earned bonuses in excess of €50,000 and €60,000. He also gave evidence that his role involved extensive travel across Ireland and significant working hours, typically in the region of 60–65 hours per week, and that his success was based on “a real sense of integrity” built on “strong relationships” “and a very strong work ethic.”

In addition to salary and bonus, it was his evidence that he received a number of benefits, including a company car, which he valued at approximately €20,000 per annum, employer pension contributions of approximately €8,100, and private health insurance of approximately €2,000. He withdrew the claim in respect of the company phone. It was his evidence that his overall remuneration package amounted to approximately €168,000 per annum.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was dismissed with immediate effect. He gave evidence that a company wide email issued at the time of his dismissal stated that he was leaving with immediate effect. He said that such wording, in the context of his industry, had significant implications and gave rise to adverse inferences, stating that “everyone knows everyone” and “word gets out very quickly,” and that such an announcement carried “very severe connotations.”

It was the Complainant’s evidence that this had a damaging effect on his reputation and his ability to secure alternative employment. He stated that the manner of dismissal did not align with his career history and that “it doesn’t make sense” adding “it doesn’t add up.”

He further gave evidence that, in his industry, such circumstances led to assumptions of wrongdoing, which negatively affected his credibility.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he sought to mitigate his loss by engaging in significant job seeking efforts. He produced a record documenting approximately 63 engagements, which included applications, recruiter contacts, and industry networking. He explained that recruitment in his sector was heavily relationship‑based.

He gave evidence that he applied for roles within the medical devices sector, as this aligned with his experience and career path. He stated that, “I’ve been in medical devices for the last decade, “ and that these were the roles he reasonably believed he was qualified to pursue.

The Complainant gave evidence of a specific application process in which he advanced successfully through the initial stages but stated that the process did not continue after he disclosed the circumstances of his dismissal. He stated that “it changed the tone… completely,” and that he did not proceed any further despite his experience and track record.

He also gave evidence that subsequent application to the same employer did not result in any further engagement, which he said demonstrated the ongoing impact of his dismissal on his prospects.

It was his evidence that he undertook additional steps to improve his prospects, including having his CV professionally updated at personal expense, and that he made extensive efforts to engage with recruiters and industry contacts. He described these efforts as “everything in my power.”

The Complainant further gave evidence that his ability to obtain employment was restricted by post‑termination covenants contained in his contract, which operated for a period of six months following his dismissal. He stated that these restrictions were “hugely impactful” given the overlapping nature of competitors in the medical devices sector and that they limited his ability to pursue opportunities during that period.

In relation to financial loss, it was the Complainant’s evidence that he remained unemployed at the time of the hearing and had suffered ongoing losses. 

He also gave evidence that a further sum of approximately GBP£18,000 remained outstanding in respect of a bonus, which he said had been due to him but was not paid prior to his dismissal and which he considered to be attributable to his dismissal.

Finally, it was his evidence that he wished to continue his career in the medical devices sector and to progress along the same trajectory as prior to his dismissal. He stated that he had built his career over a number of years and had developed specialised expertise and a network within that sector.

Cross Examination 

In cross examination, the Complainant confirmed that he was dismissed on 2 July 2025 with immediate effect and received three months’ notice pay, bringing his salary to 2 October 2025. He accepted that the six‑month restrictive covenant ran from the date of dismissal, with the first three months overlapping with notice and the remaining three months, from October 2025 to January 2026, being both unpaid and restrictive.

Turning to his job search, the Complainant confirmed that he recorded approximately 63 entries over the relevant period. When it was put to him that only approximately 23 of these constituted formal applications, he rejected that characterisation, stating that he had “reached out to numerous recruiters” and that many roles would not progress to application stage. He maintained that “it was never going to go into an application” in many cases and that pursuing applications could be “damaging [to] my reputation and credibility further.” He emphasised that “the number makes no difference because the manner in which I was dismissed was seriously damaging,” stating that even if he had applied for “50,000 jobs,” the outcome would have been the same.

He accepted that he secured only one interview. He stated that this process progressed initially but came to an end once he disclosed the circumstances of his dismissal, and that a subsequent application to the same employer did not progress.

The Complainant accepted that a portion of his recorded activity consisted of conversations or contacts rather than formal applications. He explained that this was deliberate and described his approach as “networking… very strategic,” reflecting what he said was a relationship based industry where opportunities often arise informally. He disagreed with the suggestion that such activity was not equivalent to applying for jobs.

He accepted the monthly breakdown of his activity, including that engagement levels varied, with some months reflecting limited activity and one month with none recorded. He also accepted that many entries were informal contacts rather than applications.

A specific example of networking was put to him, in which he had contacted an individual via LinkedIn and was directed to apply through the company’s careers portal. He maintained that his CV had been forwarded on and that his approach combined direct contact with follow up. He rejected the suggestion that he had failed to use formal application channels, stating that “the vast majority of my application go to LinkedIn.”

In relation to his experience, the Complainant confirmed that he held a degree in business and marketing (2006) and had worked in a marketing role between 2013 and 2015, which he described as “very minor” with “very basic duties.” He maintained that his relevant experience was in medical device sales over the previous decade and did not accept that his earlier experience was sufficient to support applications in marketing or outside that sector.

The Complainant accepted that he had explored alternative roles on a limited basis, including real estate opportunities in Dubai, describing himself in that context as “the most successful salesperson in the EMEA.” He confirmed a further similar contact but stated that opportunities in Ireland required qualifications and experience he did not have. He maintained that other sales roles, including those in financial products, generally required sector specific experience.

He accepted that he had not identified roles outside his sector that “matched or came near” his previous remuneration and described unsuccessful applications as “a black hole.” He stated that moving into other areas would involve “starting back from scratch,” which he considered unreasonable given his career trajectory and financial commitments, including a mortgage.

He maintained that he was not unwilling to diversify but that his experience limited his options, while also stating “why should I have to diversify” and that accepting lower‑paid roles would have been “an injustice… based on what I was on.”

When asked about salary expectations, he ultimately indicated that roles in the region of €55,000 to €60,000 could be considered, although he noted that many such roles were “Dublin based” and involved additional costs.

He confirmed that he remained active on LinkedIn and reviewed roles regularly but stated that many advertised positions were not relevant or had already been filled. He confirmed that his last formal applications for specific roles were made in or around January 2026. He explained that, after receiving similar outcomes, he considered himself to be “fighting a losing battle” and maintained that “no matter how many roles I applied for… it was the same response,” which he attributed to the circumstances of his dismissal and the lack of documentation confirming that the Respondent accepted liability.

Re-Examination 

In re‑examination, the Complainant confirmed that the sum of GBP£18,000 was included in the calculation for financial loss.

The Complainant reiterated that, where he progressed to later stages in recruitment processes and was required to disclose the circumstances of his dismissal, this proved “very damaging” to his prospects. He stated that his CV did not align with the manner of his dismissal which undermined his credibility with prospective employers.

He gave evidence that, although the establishment of liability would allow him to provide greater clarity to future employers, this would not make securing comparable employment “easy.” He stated that many opportunities had already passed and that the reference to dismissal continued to create a negative first impression, rendering him less attractive to employers.

In relation to his future career, the Complainant indicated that he wished to remain in the medical devices sector and to “continue on where I left off.” However, he accepted that he would likely have to start his career again and that returning to his previous level of remuneration and progression would be “very difficult.” He stated that it would take time to rebuild his position and prove himself in a new role.

When asked about his prospects over a two‑year period, he described it as “unlikely” that he would return to the level he had reached prior to dismissal within that timeframe. 

Finally, he explained that suggestions of self‑employment had arisen from discussions with family members in light of his ongoing difficulties in securing employment, but his stated intention remained to resume his career trajectory within the medical devices sector.

Upon inquiry, the Complainant was asked whether he had any further evidence to present. He confirmed that he did not prior to the commencement of legal submissions

 Submissions 

It was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that the Respondent had improperly narrowed the case to a question of mitigation only and failed to address the mandatory considerations under Section 7(2), including the conduct of the employer. It was argued that the Complainant had been restricted in the evidence he could give and that this prevented a full and just assessment of compensation.

It was further submitted that the Respondent’s conduct, including the manner of dismissal, the company wide communication, and the delay in accepting liability, had significantly damaged the Complainant’s reputation and employment prospects in a small and specialist industry. It was argued that this damage directly affected his ability to secure alternative employment.

In relation to mitigation, it was contended that the Complainant made reasonable efforts within the realities of his profession, and that he was not required to abandon his established career or accept substantially lower‑paid or unrelated roles. It was submitted that the Respondent’s approach imposed an unrealistic and overly onerous interpretation of the duty to mitigate.

The Complainant also relied on Labour Court authority, including the decision in X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney, UDD2612, to support the proposition that compensation should be assessed on a broad, just and equitable basis, with an initial reference point of up to two years’ remuneration. It was further submitted that awards should be assessed on a gross basis, rather than net.

Finally, it was submitted that the Complainant’s financial losses, including ongoing loss of earnings, the unpaid sum of GBP£18,000, and loss of benefits, were directly attributable to the dismissal, and that compensation should reflect the full extent of those losses.

There was no evidence proffered on behalf of the Respondent. 

Submissions

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that, as the unfair dismissal had been accepted, the only issue for determination was the Complainant’s actual financial loss, including past, current, and future loss, in accordance with Section 7 of the Acts. 

It was submitted that the central issue was whether the Complainant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, as required by both the legislation and Labour Court authority.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant had failed to adequately mitigate his loss. Over a ten month period, the Complainant had recorded approximately 63 contacts, which were said to be largely informal engagements rather than applications. Of these, only approximately 23 constituted formal job applications, which were submitted were insufficient.

The Complainant had made limited efforts to apply for roles outside the medical devices sector, despite holding a degree in business and marketing. He had expressed the view that “why should I diversify”, which it was submitted demonstrated an unwillingness to broaden his job search.

His reliance on networking, rather than applying through standard channels such as job websites, was said to be inadequate. His job search activity had reduced over time, with limited or no recent applications.

It was further submitted that the Complainant was not prevented from working outside the medical devices sector during the relevant period, notwithstanding the restrictive covenant, and that he could have pursued alternative sales or marketing roles.

Overall, it was submitted that the Complainant’s efforts fell short of what was required and that he had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, with the consequence that any compensation awarded should be significantly reduced.

It is common case between the parties that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. Based on the preliminary ruling, the only issue for determination is the appropriate level of compensation pursuant to Section 7 the Acts. 

In particular, Section 7(1)(c) provides that compensation shall be such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances. Section 7(2) (a) – (f) requires that regard be had to specified factors in determining the extent to which financial loss is attributable to the dismissal.

Section 7 (3) of the Act defines financial loss as “financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes 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 1973, or in relation to superannuation;”

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

Regulation 4 of S.I. No. 287/1977 - Unfair Dismissals (Calculation of Weekly Remuneration) Regulations, 1977  (“S.I. No. 287/1977”) provides:

“In the case of an employee who is wholly remunerated in respect of the relevant employment at an hourly time rate or by a fixed wage or salary, and in the case of any other employee whose remuneration in respect of the relevant employment does not vary by reference to the amount of work done by him, his weekly remuneration in respect of the relevant employment shall be his earnings in respect of that employment (including any regular bonus or allowance which does not vary having regard to the amount of work done and any payment in kind) in the latest week before the date of the relevant dismissal in which he worked for the number of hours that was normal for the employment together with, if he was normally required to work overtime in the relevant employment, his average weekly overtime earnings in the relevant employment as determined in accordance with Regulation 5 of these Regulations.” (emphasis added)

The Labour Court in X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney, (UDD2612), determined the correct methodology is to identify the financial loss sustained, assess the extent to which that loss is  attributable to the dismissal, and adjust the recoverable loss having regard to the conduct of the parties, including mitigation.

In assessing the Complainant’s financial loss, it is noted that the only documentary evidence opened at hearing in support of his remuneration was his contract of employment. While the contract did not reflect an updated salary figure, it is accepted that the base salary of €81,624 was not in dispute between the parties and is therefore accepted.

The Complainant gave oral evidence of additional remuneration, including bonus, overage and benefits; however, unlike X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney, (UDD2612), no supporting documentation such as payslips, bonus statements or independent valuations were produced. It is not the role of the WRC to engage in a precise accountancy exercise in the absence of such evidence, and it is incumbent on the parties to present clear and reliable evidence in support of any claim as to financial loss.

It is accepted that bonus and overage formed a material component of the Complainant’s historical earnings and were not disputed. However, as these payments were performance dependent and variable, and in the absence of reliable documentary evidence, their inclusion in the calculation would be speculative, not in accordance with Regulation 4 of S.I. No. 287/1977. 

In relation to benefits, it is accepted that the Complainant’s pension entitlement of approximately €8,100 per annum (10% of salary) is expressly provided for in his contract of employment and not disputed by the Respondent. 

In contrast, the figures relating to the benefit of health insurance given the approximate value of €2,000 per annum was not made out in evidence. However, in the absence of documentary evidence as to its precise value in the relevant period, it cannot be quantified with sufficient precision for the purposes of calculation.

The claimed company car benefit is not accepted as part of the Complainant’s financial loss. No objective evidence was provided by either party as to its value or the lease, and the evidence established that it was used primarily for work purposes with limited personal benefit. It is further found that, following the termination of his employment, the Complainant no longer had a requirement for a company vehicle in the absence of employment duties. Accordingly, no continuing financial loss arises under this heading.

In those circumstances, financial loss is most appropriately assessed by reference to base salary together with his pension.

Section 7(2)(a) – Conduct of the Employer 

The Respondent accepted that the dismissal was affected without fair procedures. It is further accepted that the Respondent issued companywide communication stating that the Complainant’s employment had ended with immediate effect, without explanation. It is also noted that a further clarification email was sent by the Respondent but only after the Complainant’s solicitor wrote to it. 

It is accepted that, in a small and relationship driven industry, such communication is capable of giving rise to adverse inference, but this must be balanced with the fact there was no evidence that this communication was sent by the Respondent beyond its own internal email or reached recruiters and/or prospective employers. The evidence was that the Complainant himself raised the issue of his dismissal while engaging with hospital contacts while networking.  

However, it is accepted that this may give rise to an initial impairment of the Complainant’s employment prospects, with the Complainant identified at least one recruitment process that was adversely affected by the circumstances of his dismissal.

It is consistent with Mpstor Limited v William Opperman UD/20/23, that a summary dismissal of this nature may impact an employee’s standing in the labour market.

However, applying the approach of the Labour Court in X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney (UDD2612), it is necessary to distinguish between the initial loss attributable to the dismissal with the ongoing period of unemployment thereafter.

It is therefore found that the Respondent’s conduct materially contributed to financial loss.

Section 7(2)(b) – Conduct of the Employee

There was no evidence that the Complainant contributed to his dismissal. 

Therefore, no reduction applies. 

Section 7(2)(c) – Mitigation of Loss

It is accepted that the duty to mitigate is based on the principle of reasonableness. It is further accepted that an employee is required to act reasonably but is not obliged to accept the first available role, as set out in AG Bracey Ltd v Iles [1973] IRLR 210.

The Complainant relied on Bessenden Properties Ltd v Corness [1974] IRLR 338 in support of the proposition that the burden of proof lies on the Respondent in relation to mitigation of loss. However, it is noted that this authority predates the enactment of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 and does not take account of Section 7. It is therefore found that the assessment under Section 7(2)(c) is a question of fact, to be determined by reference to the evidence presented at hearing of the Complainant’s own account of his efforts to mitigate his loss.

It is accepted that the Complainant undertook some efforts to obtain employment and produced a record of approximately 63 engagements, including applications, recruiter contact and networking. It is further accepted that networking forms a legitimate component of job seeking within a relationship based sector. However, it is clear from the Complainant’s own evidence that only a limited proportion of these engagements constituted formal applications, and that his activity levels were inconsistent, with periods of minimal engagement.

It is further noted that the Complainant’s search remained largely confined to the medical devices sector, notwithstanding his own evidence that his reputation had been adversely affected within that industry. The Complainant expressed an unwillingness to “diversify” his career. While it is accepted that he was not required to abandon his established profession, it is found that this reflected a reluctance to meaningfully pursue alternative roles within the broader sales market. In that context, regard has also been given to prevailing labour market conditions, including the availability of opportunities outside the Complainant’s specific sector.

It is also found that there were material inconsistencies in the Complainant’s evidence. While he maintained an intention to continue in the medical devices sector, he stated in re‑examination that he did not expect to obtain employment before 2027, without providing a clear or substantiated basis for that position.

It is further noted that the Complainant gave evidence of ongoing financial commitments, including a mortgage, yet limited himself to 23 applications for active roles and secured only one interview over a ten month period and did not demonstrate substantial engagement with alternative employment opportunities or upskilling.

It is therefore found that, having regard to the evidence, the Complainant’s efforts did not meet the standard of reasonableness required under Section 7(2)(c). This is consistent with the approach in Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Ltd UD858/1999, where it was held that a Complainant is expected to devote a reasonable portion of each working day to seeking employment, and that passive or limited engagement is insufficient. A similar approach is reflected in The Blue Door v Karl Fitzgerald UDD2126 and St Colmcille’s (Kells) Credit Union Limited v Patrick Leneghan UD/19/103, where it was emphasised that an employee must take active and credible steps to obtain alternative employment.

Applying the approach of the Labour Court in X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney (UDD2612), part of the loss remains attributable to the dismissal, while a further portion is not attributable due to insufficient efforts to mitigate.

It is accepted that the restrictive covenant limited employment within the Complainant’s sector for a period of six months, three months of which overlapped with paid notice (2 July 2025 – 2 October 2025). The three month post notice restriction materially limited the Complainant’s ability to obtain employment within his chosen field during that period and therefore contributed to an initial period of financial loss. However, it is found that this restriction did not prevent the Complainant from seeking or obtaining employment outside that sector or from pursuing alternative forms of work or training.

Adopting the approach of the Labour Court in X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney (UDD2612), the effect of the restrictive covenant has been taken into account in identifying the portion of loss properly attributable to the dismissal, as distinct from that arising from the Complainant’s failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.

Section 7(2)(d) and (e) – Procedural Deficiencies

It is accepted that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

The Respondent’s reliance on Stephens v Archaeological Development Services Ltd [2010] IEHC 540 is accepted wherein it was held that compensation under the Acts is strictly compensatory and confined to financial loss. It does not encompass punitive or exemplary damages.

It is therefore found that procedural deficiencies form part of the overall context, but do not independently extend the period of compensable loss.

Section 7(2)(f) – Contribution to the Dismissal

There was no evidence that the Complainant contributed to his dismissal where the Respondent described the dismissal as a no‑fault dismissal.

Therefore, no reduction arises under this heading.

Compensation

The Complainant sought compensation of €334,688, representing two years’ remuneration, being the statutory maximum available under Section 7 of the Acts. The Respondent accepted that it dismissed the Complainant without regard to fair procedures or the relevant Codes of Practice. However, for the reasons set out above, this level of compensation is not sufficiently supported by the evidence. 

It is accepted that the Complainant suffered financial loss following dismissal. It is further accepted that he historically earned bonus and overage payments, and that these figures were not challenged in cross‑examination and were reflected in the Respondent’s submissions. However, it is found that these payments were performance dependent and variable in nature, as reflected in Regulation 4 of S.I. No. 287/1977.

Crucially, no evidence was adduced as to the operation of the bonus scheme, including how such payments were calculated or what criteria governed entitlement. In addition, no supporting documentation was produced, such as payslips, bonus statements, commission records or contractual provisions setting out the terms of the scheme. Aside from the Complainant’s oral evidence as to the amounts received in previous years, there was no evidence before the hearing capable of establishing the basis upon which those payments arose or the extent to which they would have continued.

While indicative of earning capacity, the evidence does not establish, with sufficient precision or reliability, that such payments would have been earned in the relevant period or that there existed any guaranteed or contractual entitlement to those sums. In the absence of sufficiently reliable evidence from which to derive a consistent or representative average, it is found that their inclusion would be speculative.

It is further accepted that the Complainant had accrued service for redundancy purposes. However, it is found that any entitlement to redundancy is contingent upon the occurrence of a redundancy situation and does not constitute a definite financial loss arising at the date of dismissal. While no separate award arises under this heading, this factor has been taken into account in assessing what is just and equitable in all of the circumstances.

Accordingly, financial loss is appropriately assessed by reference to the Complainant’s base salary and his pension. 

In considering whether this entire period is attributable to the dismissal, regard has been had to the Complainant’s evidence as to his job seeking efforts, together with the findings above in respect of mitigation. While it is accepted that the Complainant undertook efforts to obtain employment, including engagement with recruiters and industry contacts, it is found that those efforts were limited in scope and consistency, and were largely confined to the medical devices sector. It is further found that the Complainant was unwilling to meaningfully “diversify” his job search and engaged only to a limited extent with alternative opportunities as required by Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Ltd UD858/1999. 

However, it is also accepted that the Respondent’s conduct, including the manner of dismissal and the operation of the restrictive covenant, had an adverse impact on the Complainant’s ability to secure employment, particularly in the initial period following dismissal.

The Complainant remained unemployed from 2 July 2025 up to and including the date of hearing on 27 May 2026, a period of approximately 47 weeks. It is further accepted that he was paid in lieu of notice for a period of three months following dismissal, thereby reducing the relevant period for consideration of actual financial loss to approximately 33 weeks.

Having regard what is just and equitable in all the circumstances, including the failures of the Respondent in the dismissal, the effect of the restrictive covenant, a reasonable period for labour market re‑entry,, it is found based on the Complainant’s annual base salary of €81,624 plus annual pension of €8,100 equating to a weekly sum of €1,725.46, this gives rise to compensation in the sum of €39,858.13. 

In circumstances where elements of variable remuneration could not be reliably quantified, the calculation has been confined to base salary, while any potential loss of redundancy entitlement has been taken into account in the overall assessment but does not give rise to a separate award.

In relation to prospective loss, it is found that the Complainant has not established that any continued unemployment beyond the date of hearing is attributable to the dismissal. Having regard to his restrictive approach to job seeking and failure to meaningfully engage with alternative opportunities, no award arises under this heading.

Accordingly, the award represents a just and equitable assessment of the Complainant’s financial loss, having regard to all of the circumstances and Labour Court’s approach in X Internet Unlimited Company v Rooney (UDD2612).

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. 

For the reasons outlined above, I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €39,858.13 which is considered to be just and equitable in all of the circumstances.