Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Office Manager

A Company

Representatives

Self-represented 

Mr. Robin Hyde, Alastair Purdy LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00069040-001

05/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00069040-002

05/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00069040-003

05/02/2025

The complainant’s case is that she was unfairly dismissed and was not paid her notice period. She also claims that she was not paid statutory redundancy.

The respondent denies the claims in full.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

The complainant said she commenced employment with the respondent in May 2016 and assisted in growing the company. She said she worked remotely except on a few occasions when she attended on site. On 16th January 2025, she was expecting a visit to her home by her husband who was Operations and Transport Manager. She had just separated from her husband the previous week. She said she was surprised when his father, the Managing Director also arrived at the house. She said that the Managing Director then informed her that she would be finishing with the company that day and would be paid up to the end of the month. She said he took her work laptop and work phone and informed her that the company car could remain until the end of the month. She said the car was subsequently returned to the company on 28th January 2025.

She said she was offered a meeting in a hotel in March 2025 although she subsequently agreed to attend mediation instead. She received a letter on 21st March 2025 from Purdy LLP alleging that she engaged in an extramarital affair which she said had nothing to do with conduct in the workplace. She said this was a false allegation against her.

She received another letter from Purdy LLP on 27th March 2025 in relation to a recording she had made of the earlier conversation with the Managing Director at her house on 16th January 2025.

She said she was dismissed on 16th January 2025 and that proper procedures were not followed and the company were then trying to backtrack. She did not accept a claim by the company that she did not show up for work after 16th January 2025. She said she was dismissed and could not work as her laptop, phone, and then car was removed.

She said she received a termination letter of 28th May 2025 due to her absence from work.

She was informed by her husband in a text message of 15th January 2025 that a redundancy package would be arranged. She made a complaint to the WRC following on from the 16th January 2025 meeting at her house. She said she was offered a redundancy payment at the end of January 2025 although this was later withdrawn.

She said she was not given her minimum notice when informed she was finishing with the company on 16th January 2025. On 7th February 2025, she emailed the company secretary querying why she was still being paid. She said she was earning €600 net per week. She received the following response-

‘To confirm, you are an employee of the company, you were never dismissed, severance was suggested but you haven’t responded. Until this is rectified you will remain an employee of the company.’

She said she continued to receive pay for up to 8 weeks. She said she was offered a severance package which she did not agree to.

On mitigating her loss, she said she had an interview with a company in the same trade on 28th August 2025 and that they were going to take her on. Before starting this new employment on 1st September 2025, she received a phone call withdrawing the offer. She said she believes that this was related to the respondent passing on information. She said she could not get a job in the same trade as her name was blackened. She applied for childcare jobs as she had previously worked in this area.

Under cross-examination, the complainant was asked about her gross earnings, remote working, and company car use. She replied that gross earnings could vary and she mainly worked from home. She had made a financial contribution of €130 each week to the Managing Directors personal account in previous years towards the company car which was later traded in. It was put to her that she wanted to accept pay and claim unfair dismissal at the same time. She replied that she had queried why she was still being paid.

She was asked if she received a dismissal letter and if she remained an employee after 16th January 2025. She replied that the Managing Director had clearly informed her that her job was gone on 16th January 2025 when the company equipment was removed.

She was asked about her relationship with the Operations and Transport Manager and if they could still work together. She replied that the relationship ended on 10th January 2025, he moved out on 15th January 2025, and she could have continued to work with the company as they worked in different parts of the business. She was asked if she sought her job back and she replied that she did not.

It was put to her that evidence would be given that she was open to the suggestion of leaving the company and indicated an agreement to severance terms. She replied that she had not agreed to severance terms.

She was asked why she did not attend work and the arranged meeting. She replied that she needed her laptop to work and this was removed in January 2025. It was put to her that trust and confidence had broken down. She replied that they worked in different parts of the business.

She was asked why she did not attend a meeting in March 2025, and after May 2025 did not appeal the dismissal decision. She confirmed that she did not appeal.

It was put to her that she did not submit documentary evidence on attempts to find alternative work. She replied that she did not know she had to do this and agreed to submit details.

Summary of Operations and Transport Manager’s Evidence

The witness said he was second in command of the company. He was married to the complainant and had a young family. The complainant started working in the family business as it was an extra income which assisted with paying the mortgage. He said the complainant often attended on site. He said when their relationship ended, he did not work for two days and was stressed. He said initially everyone was on same page that she could not continue in the business. He took a proactive role in sorting a severance package as she still needed to be looked after. He said it was a family business, and the Managing Director was aware of the severance discussions with the complainant. He said when he was returning to his house on 16th January 2025, his father accompanied him to support and assist with his children. He said he was aware that the complainant’s phone was recording although he did not know the significance of this. He did not connect this to a work issue. He said the complainant was not dismissed on 16th January 2025 and he believes the Managing Director did not attend his family home to dismiss the complainant. He said the next step was that a severance package would be put together and there were on and off discussions. He informed the complainant that the car did not have to be returned immediately.

Despite his best efforts, and the complainant’s indications that she would sign an agreement, this did not happen and he stepped back from severance discussions after that. He said that he thought she was getting bad advice.

Under cross-examination, it was put to him that he got an earlier indication from the complainant that she would not sign the agreement. He said this was untrue.

Summary of Managing Director’s Evidence

The witness gave testimony of how he started the company and grew it to employing 16/17 staff. He said it is a family business with his wife, and his son who will take over in time. He said the complainant was taken-on as they had just taken out a mortgage and it was extra income for them. He said she was a good worker. He said he became aware of the separation on 15th January 2025 and he was shocked. As his son was stressed, he realised he would have to step-in as support. He said his son was unfit to work and he had to keep the business going. He said he was aware from his son’s conversation on 15th January 2025 that there would be a settlement and thought everyone was on the same page. He said he was unaware that the discussion on 16th January 2025 at the complainant’s house was recorded. He said it was impossible for the complainant to remain in the business, and he did not intend to dismiss her at that meeting. He said he needed the laptop and work phone to keep the business going and he did not expect to have to jump into that role.

He said his son was working on the severance agreement and he had full authority to offer terms and conclude an agreement. When no agreement was reached, he said his solicitors then wrote to the complainant, and she did not attend a subsequent meeting. He said the meeting went ahead in her absence and it was followed by a termination letter, with no subsequent appeal. He said he did not contact another employer to deny the complainant an employment opportunity.

Under cross-examination, it was put to him by the complainant that she never sought a redundancy payment. He replied that his intentions were to make things easier for her. He was asked whether he took the office phone and her personal phone. He replied that he asked her to clear any personal information before the phone was removed.

The Adjudication Officer asked whether it was appropriate to have raised work matters on 16th January 2025, and to have removed work equipment when the complainant was not on notice of the meeting. He replied that he was not too familiar with workplace policies on this and his intention was to clarify matters and ensure the continuation of the business. He was asked whether he followed up at any stage with the complainant after this initial meeting. He replied that his wife, son, and then solicitors were in contact with her.

He denied that payments made from a joint account were towards the company car.

CA-00069040-001- Unfair Dismissal Complaint

The Law:

The Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977-2015 (“the Acts”) defines “dismissal” in relation to an employee as including the termination by the employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee.

Section 6(1) of the Act provides:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”.

Section 6(4) of the Act provides:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: . .

(a)…..

(b)…..

(c)…..

(d)…..

Section 6(6) of the Act provides:

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(7) of the Acts provides:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to 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 section 14 (1) of this Act [the procedure which the employer will observe before and for the purpose of dismissing the employee] or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) of section 7 (2) of this Act”.

On (a) above, WRC Adjudication does not decide the question of whether, on the evidence before it, the employee should be dismissed or not. The task is to considerwhat a reasonable employer would decide. An Adjudication Officer should have regard to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct in relation to the dismissal. This requires a determination of the range of responses which a reasonable employer could have taken having regard to the nature of the case and then a consideration as to whether the employer’s decision lay within that range.

On (b) above, this relates to the process under which the dismissal took place. Fair procedures are not perfect procedures. The role of an Adjudication Officer is to establish if the process followed by the company conformed to the accepted standard of fairness and objectivity. A central consideration is whether any purported breach of due process endangered a fair hearing or a fair result. Generally, fair procedures require that details of any allegations of wrongdoing are put to the employee concerned, the employee is given the opportunity to respond, the employee is given an opportunity to be represented, and the employee is afforded a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors, and circumstances.

Findings

Preliminary Issue- Date of Dismissal?

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute although the date of dismissal is. Accordingly, the initial burden of proof initially rests on the complainant. As per the complainant, the date of dismissal is 16th January 2025. As per the respondent, the 28th of May 2025 is the date of dismissal.

The complainant gave testimony that her father-in-law and Managing Director came to her house on 16th January 2025 and informed her that she would be finishing that day. He removed work equipment. The complainant referred the unfair dismissal complaint to the WRC on 5th February 2025. On 7th February 2025, she queried with the company secretary why she was still being paid.

The Operations and Transport Manager gave testimony that on 15th January 2025 there was an indication the complainant would leave with a redundancy package. These text messages were put into evidence. The Managing Director gave testimony that he was aware of the previous day exchanges that everyone was on the same page. This was the backdrop to the discussion at the house and the removal of the work equipment the next day.

Mr. Hyde referenced case law that even if the complainant deemed herself to be dismissed, that the subsequent events made it clear that she remained an employee. She was on the payroll, continued with severance discussions, and was subsequently afforded fair procedures prior to the dismissal on 28th May 2025.

I have reviewed this case law, Bartender v. Hospitality Services Provider IR-SC-00002759 (2024) and Employee v. Employer UD23/2009, WT13/2009. It is common case that heat of the moment discussions culminating in dismissal can be retracted. Each situation will have its own context and facts. It is an objective test. A crucial factor is whether prompt steps are taken to retrieve the situation. In Bartender, the line manager instigated the dismissal although this was quickly retracted by the Managing Director. Similarly in Employee v. Employer, adequate and reasonable steps were taken to withdraw the dismissal. Those cases can be distinguished from the facts of this case, in that no evidence was presented which demonstrated a prompt retraction after the discussion on 16th January 2025. It was the complainant who took steps in referring a complaint to the WRC on 5th February 2025, and who queried why she was still being paid on 7th February 2025. The Managing Director took no immediate steps to retract or clarify matters having instigated the earlier discussion and removed the company equipment on 16th January 2025. The fact that the complainant remained on the payroll and participated in settlement discussions is not persuasive of continued employment given the circumstances. Remaining on the payroll was outside of the complainant’s control, and continued engagement does not change what occurred on 16th January 2025. Given how matters unfolded, the complainant could not continue with her employment when her work equipment had been removed.

By any objective standards, I find the testimony and actions of the complainant as consistent with an employee who had been dismissed. For the reasons outlined, I decide the date of dismissal is 16th January 2025. This entails there is jurisdiction to inquire into the substantive complaint.

Procedures

As noted by Redmond, “the concept of fairness is located within a framework which accepts that the employer has the right to dismiss where this is necessary to protect its business interests. To that extent it adopts an employer perspective. At the same time, the law requires that employers should not remorselessly pursue their own interests. The employee’s interests must be considered as well. The function of fairness is to reconcile these interests.” (Redmond on Dismissal Law, 3rd ed., Bloomsbury Professional 2017 at [13.01]).

As I have decided the dismissal date is 16th January 2025, there was no fair procedure prior to this. The complainant was not on notice of the meeting. She had no time to prepare or ensure someone else was present for support. There was no opportunity for the complainant’s views to be considered, despite her long service with the company.

I decide that due process was not afforded to the complainant. As the procedural aspect of the dismissal was flawed, it automatically entails that it was an unfair dismissal.

Reasonableness/Proportionality

Despite already deciding that procedures were not followed, for completeness, I have also considered whether the employer acted reasonably. The respondent relies on section 6(6) of the Act (other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal) and specifically that trust and confidence had broken down. It is questionable whether a personal separation of two employees automatically entails that one or other should leave the employment. Once the personal relationship broke down, it was clear from the evidence that a quick decision was made that the complainant could not continue in employment. I am not convinced that these quick actions were reasonable or were within a range of responses that a reasonable employer would make.

Even though the date of dismissal was 16th January 2025, the reasonableness of the decision was also relied upon by the respondent. Mr Hyde submitted that there was no formal dismissal on 16th January 2025, and subsequently the complainant was given an opportunity to engage which she did not take up. It is presumed that if the complainant did engage at this point that the issue of trust and confidence would have been central to those discussions.

The complainant asserted that she could have continued in the business, particularly as the roles were separate. Even accepting the respondent position that there was no dismissal on 16th January 2025, there was a window to clarify matters up to 5th February 2025 before the WRC dismissal complaint was made. I am satisfied that a pro-active approach within that time was an action within a range of responses that a reasonable employer would have availed of. Although procedural steps were then followed, this was much too late and was unreasonable given what had already transpired. I do not consider these reasonable actions from a reasonable employer.

Redress

Section 7(2) of the Acts provides:

“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.”

Section 7(3) of the Acts provides:

“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.”

As provided for at section 7(1) of the Acts, where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress. The complainant is seeking compensation, and I agree that this is the appropriate redress. Compensation is based on financial loss arising from the dismissal. The complainant submitted that financial loss should include payments from a joint account to a personal account of the Managing Director in relation to a company car. I find these payments as too remote from the dismissal date and agree with Mr. Hyde’s submission that an informal private payment arrangement cannot be considered as loss of remuneration.

As pay was received up to the end of May 2025, I estimate the loss of gross earnings to date at €35,000.

Section 7(2) of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation payable, I must have regard to the measures taken to mitigate loss. In a favourable employment market, it is not unreasonable for the complainant to have obtained some employment to date. Despite the job offer  withdrawal in September 2025, I am not satisfied from the documents received that sufficient job applications were made over the period. I find it just an equitable to reduce the award by €10,000.00 leaving a payment of €25,000.00 which is the equivalent of approximately 29 weeks’ pay.

I find it is just and equitable to direct the respondent to pay the complainant the equivalent of 29 weeks’ wages which is €25,000.00 gross.

CA-00069040-003- Minimum Notice Complaint

Section 4 of the 1973 Act provides:

“(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,…

Section 12(1) of the 1973 Act provides:

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4(2) or 5 may, where the adjudication officer finds that that section was contravened by the employer in relation to the employee who presented the complaint, include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by the employee by reason of the contravention.”

Finding

When the complainant was dismissed on 16th January 2025, the complainant gave testimony that she would be paid up to the end of the month. This was not the full minimum notice in accordance with the Act. As I am satisfied that the complainant had service between 5-years and 10-years, the notice period is four-weeks’. As per the Unfair Dismissals complaint, I have factored in the payment of salary by deducting the 8-weeks payment from that award.

Accordingly, I decide the respondent contravened the Act, and I direct the respondent pay the complainant gross compensation of €3,442.80 being the loss sustained by the complainant by reason of the contravention.

CA-00069040-002- Redundancy Complaint

The only mention of redundancy in evidence was in text messages of 15th January 2025. The complainant did not provide any further information that a redundancy situation existed. I am satisfied that there was no redundancy as prescribed in the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

I decide to disallow the complainant’s appeal.

CA-00069040-001- Unfair Dismissal Complaint

I find the complainant was unfairly dismissed and it is just and equitable to direct the respondent to pay the complainant €25,000.00 gross, the equivalent of 29 weeks’ wages.

CA-00069040-003- Minimum Notice Complaint

I decide the respondent contravened the Act, and I direct the respondent pay the complainant gross compensation of €3,442.80 being the loss sustained by the complainant by reason of the contravention.

CA-00069040-002- Redundancy Complaint

I decide to disallow the complainant’s appeal.

Unfair Dismissal