Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jim  Moynihan

Saint Luke's Radiation Oncology Network (Slron)

Representatives

  In person

 Management.

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-00064725-001

11/07/2024

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 16th July 2022 and remained in employment until 12th January 2024. The complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 11th July 2024.

The complainant has sent in a series of emails that, when put together, amount to a submission on his part. I will try and summarise these to an extent that can be read as a complete submission.

1.The complainant is making a complaint under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The complaint is that he was unfairly selected for redundancy. The complainant believes a redundancy situation exists when an employee loses a job due to no work being available or for any other reason not related to the employee.

When the complainant received his contract for the role of Clerical Officer at St. Luke’s SLRON Beaumont Centre he feels he had to remind his new employer that he was next on the panel as they were confused.

At the outset the contract was not explained to the complainant, he was not made aware of what a specified purpose contract entailed and was not given a specific end date one way or the other. The contract had been emailed to him by HR.

The Specified Purpose Contract may not end on a specific date. The contract finishes at an agreed time when a particular task is completed. At no point was the complainant approached or spoken to in regard to when his contract was nearing its end by hr or Line Manager or Senior Management. The complainant states he was very much in the dark and wishes to state that no agreed time or date was set in motion by his employer.

The complainant approached his line manager in July 2023 and asked that a meeting be arranged when a senior manager from the Rathgar Centre was present. Such a meeting took place in July 2023 at which the complainant explained his situation, all present listened to him and at one stage the most senior one stated “we should have made you permanent” and she stated that it had nothing to do with the complainant’s job role or performance.

In relation to contract renewal, it was down to the HSE as decision maker. Those present at the previously mentioned meeting did say they would fight for the complainant and write to the HSE directly as an effort to justify why he was needed. Effectively they had to negotiate with the HSE, they had to regularly provide reasons to hold onto staff and be constantly firefighting in the face of many questions from the HSE.

Prior to this the complainant had not gone to HR to raise a grievance. He thought that by going to senior management they would have his best interest at heart and would escalate the process of renewal of contract. The complainant believes that it was stupid and innocent of him to believe he was in good hands, but hindsight proved otherwise.

The complainant now states the next issue came to his attention when he received a copy of Approval to Hire Form B – In relation to Contract Type section – this has been left blank. The complainant believes that by this section not being completed the entire thing is a sham redundancy and approval form is invalid.

2. The following is a summary of the complainant’s second email and is entitled – Specified PurposeContract.

A brief explanation was given to the complainant by Ms Purcell in July 2023, in relation to a Specified Purpose Contract.

Ms Kenny explained the Specified Purpose contract to the complainant. He did make reference to the fact that he had tried to make contact a number of times with HR previously from July and longer via phone,  and email his Line manager every 2 to 3 days on  numbers of occasions to properly explain what exactly it entailed the contract because when he looked  through the expressions of interest and the contract terms etc , no mention of COVID Contract at all and at no time was he verbally told it was a COVID Contract .

So when Ms Kenny stated very clearly to him that this contract was a COVID contract as per written evidence re the minutes of the 18/12/2023 last , that was news to him , as nobody verbally or otherwise through any other form of communication said this to him in all his time at St. Lukes that he was on a COVID contract. My employer should have showed a duty of care.

As Specified Purpose can mean anything. COVID is very much still ongoing in terms of the present and the future.

The complainant was also told the funding was being phased out for the role he was on.  

The complainant quotes some facts from his line manager Ms McGrail who was always saying to him– “that she doesn’t want to lose staff”. In reference to the Beaumont Centre “We are bursting at the seams”.

Workload – there was a lot to be done. January 10th, 2024, 08.43am – email from his Line Manager Ms McGrail stating to him and his colleagues there is a backlog of uploading and we were then delegated different tasks to clear the backlog. From experience the complainant can attest to the fact they were always busy and paperwork, medical documents and letters were a daily regular consistent workload. There were overloads of paperwork and more on a weekly basis.

The complainant believes that to say he was no longer needed was a complete understatement and fabrication.

 Also, the complainant participated alongside a number of fellow Clerical officers throughout the country in March of 2023 a training online with HSE tutor on all aspects of being a Clerical officer. He remarked that we Clerical Officers are the life blood of the entire HSE and make it tick and without our input the HSE would ground to a halt and become rudderless. Apparently, we are appreciated.

Why would the complainant be put through all the trainings to be let go and be dismissed in January 2024?

3. The following is a summary of the complainant’s third email and is entitled – Extension No. 2.

HR, sent  a letter to the complainant via email ,dated 12th October 2023  no proper explanation very brief, the complainant never mutually agreed to this extension verbally or via email, the complainant was not asked to sign a new contract.

This extension no 2, came a few days before the first extension was due to expire.

 There were no terms offered with extension no.2, terms in the form of a contract. The first extension letter from HR dated 17th July last 2023 included an updated contract for signature.

This left the complainant very confused who now had no idea where he stood in relation to his job and how long it might last. The complainant was looking for honesty and transparency regarding his long term future

These extensions were never fully explained to the complainant either in person or by letter/email.

The complainant emailed his line manager every 3 days or so looking for an update, no updates were provided. This left the complainant feeling as if he was just being ‘fobbed off’.

The complainant demanded a meeting with a senior manager. At this stage HR were unable and/or unwilling to tell the complainant anything.

4. No HR Manager and no Right of Appeal Offered.

The meeting took place 18/12/2023. It was only afterwards that the complainant thought it strange the no HR manager was present or indeed anyone from HR.

Ironically the main reason the complainant had asked for a senior manager or someone in authority was because of the lack of HR Interaction or communication.

The complainant’s reasons for this were as follows:

1.            Legal Compliance: An HR Professional can help ensure that the termination process complies with employment laws and company policies.

2.            Documentation: Having an HR representative present provides an additional witness to the conversation, which can be important for documentation and any potential future disputes.

3.            Support: HR can provide support to both the manager and the employee, helping to manage the emotional aspects of the situation and ensuring that the employee understands their rights and any next steps.

In terms of any Appeal.

The complainant feels that anyone dismissed from a job has a right of appeal. The complainant feels that he was unfairly dismissed and should have been offered the opportunity to appeal. By bringing his case to the WRC, and by filing his complaint that he was unfairly selected for redundancy.

5. Data Protection.

Any complaints relating to Data Protection should be addressed to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.

6. Dignity at Work & Respect.

The complainant feels that the horrible and undignified way he was treated was totally unacceptable in a workplace environment, the stress, anger, annoyance, and mental health anguish felt by the complainant was severe.

Whilst trying to do his job to the best of his ability he felt extremely uncomfortable.

 “Dignity at work” refers to creating a respectful and supportive workplace environment where all employees are treated fairly and with respect. Here are some key aspects it entails:

1.            Respect and Fair Treatment: Ensuring that all employees are treated with respect, regardless of their role, background, or personal characteristics.

2.            Prevention of Bullying and Harassment: Implementing policies and procedures to prevent and address bullying, harassment, and any form of unacceptable behaviour in the workplace.

3.            Equal Opportunities: Promoting equality and diversity, ensuring that all employees have equal opportunities for growth and development1

4.            Supportive Environment: Creating a supportive work environment where employees feel valued and are encouraged to express their ideas and concerns2.

5.            Health and Safety: Ensuring the physical and mental well-being of employees by maintaining a safe and healthy work environment3.

6.            A comprehensive dignity at work policy can help define acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, provide a framework for addressing issues, and promote a positive workplace

 The complainant attended the Dignity at Work course on the HSE portal website and also did the updated version too. The complainant believes it is very relevant in relation to his unfair dismissal. Specifically in light of the fact of the numerous emails and phone calls to HR on a consistent basis. Amid his relentless persistence to be advised as to where exactly his future was.

My Employer being –

Undignified, not showing respect to honest answers in respect of what extensions are? How long and how many do I get? What do I need to do to have a full-time contract?

 My Employer being -

Being undignified in not treating me with total respect and added to that the utter confusion, stress and anger, that I went through.

 My Employer being -

Undignified in expressing transparent communication and clarity in a professional manner. Of which was sadly lacking. Having the crazy situation of chasing people constantly and wasting my time whilst ironically in a workplace environment. Duty of care not displayed by the Employer.

Communication and Clarity.

The complainant contends that the lack of communication, clarity, constant emails and calling HR from July to November 2023, being fobbed off or stonewalled was unacceptable.

Having to be consistent and persistent in chasing up was mentally draining.

This behaviour by HR left the complainant feeling disrespected. The lack of empathy and support was unacceptable according to the complainant.

As far as he was aware of Employment law, whereby there is an obligation upon the employer to work with the employee in all circumstances in a workplace environment.

Thers is a legal and moral duty to do something for your employees. A Duty of Care

The complainant claims this was a very confusing situation and he had lost all patience and trust with HR, they should have been his first port of call. They let him down.

They were not very resourceful or fully resourced. At this stage the complainant was very concerned with the constant fobbing off and getting no answers.

The complainant was informed that he would receive an updated contract for signature. This updated contract was never received by the complainant. On the letter HR clearly state that any queries should be notified to HR ( Mr Ruairi Fortune HR). The complainant made efforts to call HR to no avail.

From July to October 2023 the complainant was emailing his  line manager every 3 days , with 5 days to go until his first extension was due to expire on 17th October 2023 and time being of the essence the complainant feels he had to brow beat his  line manager to get answers from senior management, whom in his eyes left a lot to be desired.

The line manager sympathised to a point. Amazingly the complainant received another extension dated 12th October 2023 and an expiry date 1st January 2024.The complainant never at any stage agreed to any extensions either verbally or by any electronic email, plus he never mutually agreed to anything. because he was trying to get answers about them and for someone in HR or Management to get back to him.

The complainant believes that the lack of communication and clarity from your employer and HR can lead to several significant issues in the workplace:

1.            Employee Mistrust: Poor communication can create a sense of mistrust between employees and management. When employees feel they are not being kept informed , it can lead to suspicions and a lack of transparency.

2.            Reduced Engagement: Employees who feel disconnected from the organization due to poor communication are likely to be less engaged. This can result in lower productivity and a lack of motivation. There is a great book on communication entitled  “How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie” on Human Communication ..

3.            Increased Turnover: When employees are dissatisfied with communication, they may seek employment elsewhere. High turnover rates can be costly and disruptive to the organisation.

4.            Confusion and Errors: Lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings about job roles,                            responsibilities, and expectations. This can result in mistakes, missed deadlines and overall               inefficiency.

5.            Low Morale: Poor communication can create an uneasy work environment, leading to low                morale. Employees may feel undervalued and unsupported, which can further decrease                    job satisfaction.

6.            Conflict and Frustration: Miscommunication can lead to conflicts among employees and                    between employees and management. This can lead to a hostile work environment and                      increased levels of stress.

7.            Poor Decision-Making: Without clear communication, decision-making processes can be                    slowed down or flawed. This can impact an organisation, ability to respond to challenges                    and opportunities effectively.

8.            Lack of Alignment: When communication is lacking, employees may not fully understand the organization’s goals and objectives. This can lead to a lack of alignment and  co-ordination in achieving goals.

 LINE MANAGER

The complainant’s contract expired in July 2023, his line manager did not approach him, the complainant was in the dark as to where he stood and needed direction and re assurance.

The complainant took it upon himself to go direct to his line manager and resolve the contract situation. The Line Manager did arrange July meeting with senior manager. Ms Kenny makes reference to this meeting and validated on the basis that Specified Purpose contract was explained/discussed to the complainant  by Ms Purcell a senior manager of 40 years’ experience.  

The line manager did email HR and internal management on the complainant’s behalf on a number of occasions over the time of the extensions July to November 2023, the complainant felt he was going around in circles in not getting any updates at all or that management were not aware of his expired contract.

In relation to contract renewals, it is generally the responsibility of the line manager or HR department to approach an employee if their contract is up for renewal. This should ideally be done well in advance to allow time for any necessary discussions or negotiations.

A Line Manager plays a crucial role in the day-to-day operations of a team. Here are some of their main duties:

1.            Managing Employees: Overseeing the performance and productivity of team members.

2.            Recruitment and Hiring: Interviewing and hiring new employees.    

3.            Liaison Role: Acting as a bridge between senior management and employees.

4.            Performance Feedback: Offering regular feedback and conducting performance reviews.

My Expired Contract 18/12/2023(Minutes Meeting)

The complainant spoke to the Patient Services Manager asking her why he was not contacted by HR after his contract expired. He received no reply and thought this behaviour from someone in authority was appalling.

The complainant also asked the Patient Services Manager why she was not contacted in July 2023 in regard to the extension , he received silence with no explanation The complainant was not happy  with the arrogant attitude from the Patient Services Manager.

Felt disrespected and shocked that someone in authority would just blank him and not answer simple questions. I did say to her its unacceptable and I will not tolerate it.

Prior to this I had used the HR ONLINE PORTAL - 24TH November 2023 and had stated my situation fully, note my provisional date was fast approaching of 1st January 2024. The questions I had covered full time contracts, how many extensions do I have? How long do these extensions last. Do  the HSE have control over full time contracts?. I am absolutely pleading for urgent action as January 1st is fast approaching and time is of the essence.

Extension no.1 - 17th July 2023

I had 5 days till 17th October 2023 Monday left before it ran out and HR cutting it fine, about in time extending it.

Extension no. 2 -   12th October 2023 Thursday, / to the 1st January, this concerned me .I as a Human being am now stressed, feeling disrespected, confused, angry. haven’t a clue what is going on.

The extensions had me confused as I did not have certainty or clarity regarding my future. These extensions were just emailed to me without explanation. I needed stability or someone in HR or management to sit down with me and explain the extensions.

In a minutes meeting 18/12/2023 I was getting very frustrated due to the number of times I tried to make contact with HR and had no answers coming back. Ms Kenny acknowledged my frustration. As I don’t believe she had any idea at all.  I mentioned the fact of these extensions; I was confused by them. I wish to state very clearly, I never verbally or emailed or mutually agreed to any extensions because they were never explained to me, no terms and conditions attached. I was never consulted on them either.

Also I emphasised to Ms Kenny that a new contract was being offered to me would be send me in a few days based on the extension letter of the 17th July last from HR  and I never received this, I did  question her on this , but got a silence and that spoke volumes to me .

Will say again communication and clarity are part of employment law between employee and employer.

At the beginning of the meeting of the 18/12/2023 I was informed that my role was no longer required and that finance was phased out very brief no explanation proper , that was a huge shock to me.I was very angry after all I went through to get a meeting in July with 2 senior managers who assured me that they would fight for me   and write to the HSE on my behalf and not to worry about things , to the other extreme of for months on end emailing HR and phoning and utterly being ignored  and emailing my Line Manager every 2 to 3 days to get a meeting with someone in authority and to keep the pressure on .while working under duress. No duty of care.

The whole process was explained to on the 18/12/2023 and never prior to this date at all.

Also, Ms Kenny asked me have I used the HR portal? I said yes on the 24th November 2023. I thought afterwards that was very strange question bearing in mind it was Ms Kenny who made contact with me regarding my big issues on that HR Ticket.

Yet at St Lukes SLRON workload was constantly busy and were short staffed , even in my last week I have email to show in my last week and previously in my time there we have always been very busy that this is case and doesn’t tally with Ms Kenny patient services manager saying original members of staff  would have covered the workload. Why would my line manager be saying we are bursting at the seams.

After all the 3 years of hard work, effort, commitment, support and work ethic, been encouraged to apply for internal jobs by my line manager I had given to St Luke Slron and to be treated like that and just dismissed with a very brief reason was unacceptable to me a real kick in the teeth. Working under duress.

Furthermore, I did emphasis the extremely poor response from HR and Management across July to 24 November 2023 HR online portal ticket  and the complete lack of communication and total clarity was appalling and shambolic .I received a very brief email back from HR saying they would take on board my recommendations.

Please note I received an email on the 27th November2023 at 12.57 pm from Ms Kenny, Patient Services Manager   that she was forwarded my HR ticket to discuss with the HR Manager. Ms Kenny said that she had been working on it for 6 weeks, yet I had only received communication from Ms Kenny on the 27th of November in terms of my HR ticket.  To my knowledge there is or was no email from Ms Kenny in regard to my Contract issue. She only became aware of my situation on 24th November 2023 last and I had no prior communication before this date with Ms Kenny.

Introduction

The case relates to a complaint raised by Mr Jim Moynihan (Complainant) Clerical Officer with the HSE at St Luke's Radiation Oncology Network (SLRON). The complaint was submitted under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and states, “I was unfairly dismissed, I have at least 12 months service”. The complaint submitted sets out a detailed grievance referring to his employment period/contracts at SLRON. The HSE refute the allegation of wrongdoing pursuant to the Acts as the cessation of employment was solely related to the ending of a temporary specified purpose contract.

 Background

The complainant worked at SLRON from December 2020 to June 2022 as part of a TÚS Scheme. The Tús initiative is a community work placement scheme providing short-term working opportunities for unemployed people. The Tús initiative is managed by local development companies and Údarás na Gaeltachta for the Department of Social Protection (DSP), which has overall responsibility for the scheme; and participants can work up to 19.5 hours per week under the scheme.

In April 2022 a Clerical Officer position was advertised internally in SLRON. The campaign was approved due to a permanent Clerical officer vacancy, and on advertisement included the caveat “A panel is being formed to fill current/future permanent and temporary vacancies across SLRON. The post holder will be assigned to the designated site based on the needs of the Patient Services Department SLRON”.

The complainant applied for the position and after interview was placed 7th on the panel. He was subsequently issued to an expression of interest (EOI) from the panel on the basis of “CO22390 Full Time Specified Purpose Contract for a provisional initial period of 12 months based in St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, Beaumont Centre”. The complainant was successful and was offered this position.

The funding of this particular position was initially approved during the Covid-19 emergency to ‘support Covid Triage, Check-in and security of all people entering the Network building’ and to assist with the operation of the hospital during that time. The position was filled from 30th August 2021 to 15th April 2022 when the post holder at that time left the service. Covid restrictions were lifted in SLRON with effect from 1st March 2023 as per email from GM in line with national guidance, however SLRON sought approval to refill the position to assist with Patient Services. Dublin Midlands Hospital Group (DMHG) approved the refill of the position with the caveat “as per SLRON this post is an approved temporary position. Request to backfill with another temporary contract”.

A contract of employment issued to the complainant on 13th July 2022. The contract states that “SLRON…. herby offer you a Specified Purpose Contract for the post of Clerical Officer on SLRON commencing from the 18th July 2022 with a provision end date of 17th June 2023”. The complainant accepted and signed this contract on 14th July 2022.

The complainant received official correspondence of the first extension to this contract on 17th July 2023. The correspondence reads, “your post has been extended another 3 months and will now have a provisional end date of the 17th of October 2023. I will send you and updated contract for signature in the coming days but please take this as notice of your extension”. The purpose of this extension was to assist Patient Services due to understaffing.

Due to ongoing requirement in assisting Patient Services, a second extension to the contract issued in writing to the complainant on 12th October 2023 and states “your Specified purpose contract that is due to end on the 17th October 2023. I wish to advise you that your post has been extended and will now have a provisional end date of the 1st January 2024. Please take this as official notice of your extension.

Managements Position

As set out above the complainant signed the initial contract of employment issued to him on 14th July 2022. The contract specifically set out the parameters of employment within same i.e. specified purpose with an end date of 17th July 2023.

The respondent seeks to rely upon Section 2 (b) of the Acts, which effectively allow for cessation of temporary contracts, which states: (dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser aforesaid.

With regard to the communications issued to the complainant re the two extensions of the contract; emails attaching a copy of same were issued to the complainant. The complainant acknowledged the email dated 12th October re the 2nd extension, and raised no issue in this correspondence.

The complainant raised concerns around his position tenure and management at SLRON entered into discussions with the complainant to try to address these concerns. However, the HSE introduced a pause or recruitment across all Clerical Admin grades by memo dated 4th October 2023. As set out above, the position was funded initially using Covid related subsidy and was renewed on the basis of a temporary renewal only. Therefore, management were precluded from seeking approval to renew the contract. Also, as the post had evolved from the initial purpose of Covid-19, Management at SLRON made provision for the work undertaken by this post to be redistributed and terminated the contract with effect from 12th January 2024. The post no longer exists within SLRON’s whole time equivalent of positions.

The complainant was given official notice that his last day of employment would be 12th January 2024, and a HR106 Form or ‘Leaving’ form was completed and signed by the complainant on 21/12/2023 with ‘end of contract’ selected as reason. The complainant did not present to work on 12th January 2024 and made no contact with management to advise of his absence. The Leaving form, signed by the Complainant clearly states the reason for cessation was end of contract and also of note to WRC proceedings the complainant sough to have pension contributions refunded, which we suggest implies he was aware and accepted the ending of the employment relationship.

The complainants last day returned for payroll was 12th January 2024.

As the case related to a specific purpose contract we suggest there was substantial grounds justifying the dismissal in accordance with section 6(1) of the acts. In particular we suggest that it is clear that the decision on the ending of employment was not related to any of the grounds as set out in Section 6(2) (a to j) of the Acts relating to unfair reasons for dismissal.

Conclusion

Management of SLRON terminated the contract of employment of the complainant as it had reached its end date. The position was that of a temporary specified nature and when Covid-19 restrictions end, the post was used to facilitate deficits in the service created by natural movement, service requirements and seasonal demands. The post was never intended to extend indefinitely, becoming a permanent contract or serve to backfill an existing permanent post.

The cessation of employment solely related to the ending of a specified purpose contract and no other issue. Accordingly the Respondent seeks to rely upon section 2 (b) of the Acts to assert that no unfair dismissal occurred, as set out in Section 6(2) of the Acts.

It remains the position of the Respondent that the Claimant accepted the two contract extensions at the time of extension, was aware of the specified nature, and allied funding restrictions that limited the tenure of employment. As no other options were available to St Luke’s, no option other than the natural ending of the temporary employment was possible.

 In light of the foregoing, the Adjudicator is respectfully requested to uphold Managements position that there has been no contravention of the Act.

The complainant worked at SLRON from December 2020 to June 2022 as part of a TÚS Scheme. The Tús initiative is a community work placement scheme providing short-term working opportunities for unemployed people. The Tús initiative is managed by local development companies and Údarás na Gaeltachta for the Department of Social Protection (DSP), which has overall responsibility for the scheme; and participants can work up to 19.5 hours per week under the scheme.

In April 2022 a Clerical Officer position was advertised internally in SLRON. The campaign was approved due to a permanent Clerical officer vacancy, and on advertisement included the caveat “A panel is being formed to fill current/future permanent and temporary vacancies across SLRON. The post holder will be assigned to the designated site based on the needs of the Patient Services Department SLRON”.

The complainant applied for the position and after interview was placed 7th on the panel. He was subsequently issued to an expression of interest (EOI) from the panel on the basis of “CO22390 Full Time Specified Purpose Contract for a provisional initial period of 12 months based in St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, Beaumont Centre”. The complainant was successful and was offered this position.

A contract of employment issued to the complainant on 13th July 2022. The contract states that “SLRON…. herby offer you a Specified Purpose Contract for the post of Clerical Officer on SLRON commencing from the 18th of July 2022 with a provisional end date of 17th June 2023”. The complainant accepted and signed this contract on 14th July 2022.

The contract issued to the complainant initially states the following:

On behalf of St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network (hereafter referred to as the Network), I hereby offer you a Specified Purpose Contract for the post of Clerical Worker in St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network commencing from the 18th July with a provisional end date of 17th July 2023.

I note that there is no reference to what the ‘specified purpose’ may be.

What is a Specified Purpose Contract?

A specified purpose contract is an employment agreement that continues until a particular purpose is fulfilled, rather than ending on a fixed date. The contract concludes when the specified objective or event has occurred, such as:

·        The completion of a specific project or assignment

·        The outcome of a particular funding arrangement or grant

·        A business objective being met (e.g. system implementation or organisational restructure).

These contracts differ from fixed-term contracts in that they do not have a defined end date but instead hinge on the achievement or cessation of a defined purpose. Like fixed-term contracts, they are not considered permanent and are subject to specific legal protections and limits under employment legislation.

What is a Fixed – Term Contract?

A fixed – term contract is an employment agreement that lasts until a clearly defined end date. The contract automatically concludes when that date is reached, regardless of whether any specific task has been completed.

Common examples include:

·        Covering a role until a set calendar date (e.g. 31st December)

·        Employment during a defined seasonal period (e.g. summer months)

·        Temporary posts funded for a limited timeframe

These contracts are distinct from permanent contracts, which continue indefinitely until ended by either the employer or the employee, and from specified purpose contracts, which end when a particular purpose, not a date, is fulfilled.

Duration and Renewal of Fixed-Term and Specified Purpose Contracts.

Employers cannot perpetually renew these contracts to avoid granting permanent status. If an employee has been on successive fixed-term or specified purpose contracts for over four years , they are entitled to a contract of indefinite duration, unless the employer can provide objective justification for not doing so.

When renewing a fixed-term contract, employers must:

·        Provide a written statement outlining the objective grounds for renewal.

·        Ensure the renewal is communicated before the current contract expires.

Failure to adhere to these requirements may result in the employee being deemed permanent.

Unfair Dismissal Protections:

To prevent claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, it’s important that the following conditions be met.

·        The contract is in writing.

·        It specifies the objective condition for termination (e.g. end date or specified purpose).

·        It includes a clause stating that that the Unfair Dismissals Acts do not apply upon the contract’s expiry.

·        Both employer and employee have signed the contract.

If these conditions are not satisfied, the employee may be eligible to claim unfair dismissal.

In the instant case I cannot find any reference contained within the contract of employment to what the specified purpose may be.

Neither the renewal letters issued on 17th July 2023 and 12th October 2023 contain any explanation that would go any way towards outlining objective grounds justifying such an extension.

When one reads the submissions from the complainant it becomes very clear that he was looking to speak to senior management / HR personnel for some time to discuss the contract and contract extensions issued to him.

I have considered the submissions from both the complainant and the respondent and also considered the evidence from the hearing.

I now find that the complaint as submitted under the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 is well founded.

Mitigation of Loss.

The common law rule of mitigation of damages applies to compensation for unfair dismissal. Questions of mitigation are questions of fact. The burden of proof lies on the party seeking to allege that that another has failed to mitigate loss. Sir John Donaldson explained the duty in AG Bracey Ltd v Iles ([1973] IRLR 210).

‘The law is that it is the duty of a dismissed employee to act reasonably in order to mitigate his loss. It may not be reasonable to take the first job that comes along. It may be much more reasonable, in the interests of the employee and employer who has to pay compensation, that he should wait a little time. He must, of course, use the time well and seek a better paid job which will reduce this overall loss and the amount of compensation which the previous employer ultimately has to pay…’

In the instant case the complainant produced no evidence that would suggest that he has made any effort to mitigate his loss.

I now find that the complaint as submitted under the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 is well founded.

I order the respondent to pay compensation in the amount of € 4,736.00 (four weeks pay) for the effects of this unfair dismissal.

Such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.