Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Samantha  Barrett McSherry

Beech Lodge Care Facility  Ltd.

Representatives

  Self Represented

 NFP, an Aon company

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-00070754-001

11/04/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Receptions/HR Assistant and alleged she was dismissed when she notified her Line Manager that she was pregnant. The Complainant was employed for approximately five weeks and became aware she was pregnant about two weeks after she started employment and informed her Line Manager the next day. The Respondent denied that the Line Manager who dismissed the Complainant had the authority to dismiss the Complainant and advised the Respondent withdrew any purported dismissal immediately once they became aware of her termination and alleged the Complainant resigned due to other issues associated with her work namely her travel method to work (cycling) and her declined request to work 3 days instead of the contracted 5 days

The Complainant  was employed from March 13th 2025 for approximately 5 weeks.

The Complainant  informed her employer of her pregnancy during her second week of employment, just after finding out that she was pregnant.

Upon informing them of her pregnancy, her treatment within her place of employment changed. Initially it began as her Manager  began complaining of body odour within the Reception area, her work space, and began chastising her for this regularly. No other person informed her of any smell within the area. Her Manager  insisted that she had to shower every day upon arriving to work, despite showering before leaving each day before leaving for work.

Her Manager  began to hyper-criticize her work, stating she was doing things incorrectly and changing the methods of completing the work. No formal training was given and no employee handbook was offered, stating the handbook was 'being revised'. The methods of completing tasks changed daily and she was chastised for this. Including above, her Manager began to become more aggressive in her mannerisms, raising her voice and speaking condescendingly to her. She went as far as stating her mistakes were due to 'pregnancy brain' on a regular occasion, and despite the Complainant’s disapproval, she continued stating this.

All of the above occurred within a couple of days of the Complainant  informing them of her pregnancy. After a week or two, she overheard her Manager state to another member of management within the Care Home that she is trying to make the Complainant  quit. She believed this was due to her pregnancy as none of the above occurred until after informing them of this change in circumstance.

On the 7th of April, she went to the Doctor in relation to her pregnancy, where it was discovered that she had become unwell due to stress (and the Doctor believed the illness occurred due to her work closely with the elderly and the stress put on by management) and she was given 3 days of rest. On Wednesday 9th of April, she contacted her Doctor as her health had gotten worse and she was given an antibiotic and ordered to rest for another couple of days. On Wednesday 9th April, her  Manager  contacted her via phone and only stated that she did not sound well, but stated that she should rest and contact them Monday,14th April, to ensure she did not bring any infections into the care home.

On Thursday 10th April, the Complainant  received an email stating her employment was terminated without any statement given. In this email, her Manager stated 'it doesn't really matter as the sick pay does not commence until you have worked 13 weeks' in relation to her about to send on her doctors note in relation to her second appointment. The Complainant  wanted to note that she had received no formal reprimands and no other issues within the job were brought to her attention.

The Complainant  claimed she was unfairly dismissed due to her pregnancy.

The complaint is a claim of unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Respondent denies that the Complainant  was unfairly dismissed and also denies that the Complainant  was constructively dismissed. The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant  resigned of her own volition, in circumstances where no breach of contract arose, where the Respondent acted reasonably at all times, and where engagement was ongoing and more formal internal procedures were both available and actively offered.

 Beech Lodge Care Facility has been operating since 2001 and currently employs 58 staff  Situated in Bruree, Co. Limerick offer a 66 bedded facility delivering:

•                Long Term Care

•                Rehabilitative Care

•                Respite Care

•                Convalescent (Short Term) Care

The highest standards of well-being for our residents and indeed our staff is always our priority. The Respondent operates within a structured, compliance-driven regulated environment, with established HR policies and procedures in place to support the management of employee relations matters. 

The Complainant  was employed as an Administrative Assistant, commencing employment on 13th March 2025.  At the time of the employment ending, the Complainant  was on probation but due to sick leave her probationary period had been paused.

Outline of key personnel in relation to this matter: 

Senior Management Team: 

Edward Moore; Operations Manager  (now Facilities Manager ). 

The following is noted in relation to Mr. E Moore: Mr. Moore had only commenced employment with the Company, approximately 2 weeks beforehand in late March 2025, as Operations Manager, having previously worked overseas. It is noted that Mr. E Moore and Mrs AM Moore are family members.

 Anne Maria Moore; Proprietor

The following is noted in relation to Mrs. AM Moore:  

Mrs. Moore had unfortunately been suffering from ill health and had been admitted to hospital circa February 2025 for medical treatment. She was released to recuperate at home but was under medical supervision for an extended period of 12 weeks thereafter. Whilst she was able to do limited work from home and act in an advisory capacity in the background she was not carrying out her day to day work in the workplace in a Managerial / operational capacity during the timeframe these events occurred in relation to the Complainant . 

Complainant ’s line Manager : Trish Fitzgerald - Office Manager  

The following is noted in relation to Ms. Fitzgerald: 

Though she was hired as Office Manager, we are aware that in her email footer, Trish Fitzgerald,  inserted the title of HR and Office Manager. This job title was not expressly authorised by senior management however we acknowledge that the Respondent did not instruct her to change her title in the email footer back to Office Manager, which was an oversight on senior management’s behalf (whilst Anne Maria Moore was partially absent due to ill health as per above). Though Ms. Fitzgerald carried out some HR related duties for example recruitment, induction, dealing with staff absences, payroll queries etc, she was employed in a mid-level supervisory capacity and  did not have overall authority for Human Resource Management in the Company and she had no authority to dismiss staff without the express instruction and authorisation of senior management at the time (Edward Moore and Anne Maria Moore). 

Ms. Fitzgerald had only commenced employment with the Company herself approximately 2-months beforehand in late February 2025.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES REGARDING CLAIM CA-00070754:

FACT OF DISMISSAL AND DATE OF DISMISSAL

The Complainant  lodged her complaint with the WRC on 11 April 2025, having received an email from Trish Fitzgerald on 10 April 2225, advising her that management had decided ‘not to have her return.’ It is acknowledged that the Complainant  was entitled to infer from said email that she was terminated from her employment. 

Notwithstanding the above, on the same date as lodging her WRC complaint, the Complainant  made enquiries via email to the proprietor Anne Maria Moore in relation to the validity of the above ‘termination’.

At this point, the Respondent Company had not actually terminated the Complainant’s employment and she remained on payroll. Therefore, although the email advised her ‘not to return’ the Respondent Company did not actually enact any termination. It is acknowledged that the Complainant  would not have known this at this point and she lodged her complaint with the WRC in good faith.

The evidence as outlined below that the Respondent some 2 working days later (14 April) swiftly retracted the communication of 10 April, apologised wholeheartedly to the Complainant , met with her, wrote to her many times and engaged with her over a 5 week period (whilst she remained on sick leave)  regarding her absence and planning for her return to the workplace. The Complainant  was fully engaged and maintained regular contact with the Respondent with regards to her sick leave. The evidence will show that it is clear that the Complainant  viewed herself as still employed up until she herself resigned until 02 May 2025.

It is the Respondent position that the Complainant  was not dismissed on 10 April 2025 and her claim in relation to dismissal on said date is not well founded and should be dismissed.

CLARIFICATION OF CLAIM TAKEN: UNFAIR DISMISSAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL

The Complainant  has lodged a complaint of alleged Unfair Dismissal on 10 April 2025. Notwithstanding the Respondent position that no dismissal took place, it is acknowledged that the employment ended on a later date of 02 May 2025.

No claim for constructive dismissal has been lodged by the Complainant  in relation to the ending of the employment relationship on 02 May 2025, though it was open to her to do so.

The Respondent respectfully requests that duplicate or parallel proceedings cannot be effected in the WRC relation to the alleged wrongful ending of the same employment relationship and surrounding the same set of facts and accordingly in line with the common law rule set out in Henderson v. Henderson (1843), we respectfully request that the hearing be conducted on the basis of either a claim of alleged Unfair Dismissal of 10 April 2025 or alleged Constructive Dismissal on 02 May 2025, and cannot proceed on both bases.

 CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE 12-MONTHS SERVICE and RESPONDENT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE EMPLOYEE’S PREGNANCY

The Complainant ’s employment with the Respondent ended on 2nd May 2025, by reason of resignation. At the date of termination, the Complainant  did not have the requisite twelve months’ continuous service necessary to ground a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015.

While the statutory service requirement does not apply where a dismissal arises wholly or mainly from an employee’s pregnancy, confinement, breastfeeding, or any matter connected therewith, the Respondent denies that the ending of the Complainant ’s employment was connected to any such protected ground. Further, the Respondent had no knowledge, whether actual or constructive, and was not informed at any time that the Complainant  was pregnant.

Accordingly, the Respondent maintains that the Workplace Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts due to the Complainant ’s lack of qualifying service.

In relation to the above, the Complainant  outlines on her WRC complaint form that she had informed her Manager  of her pregnancy during the second week of her employment. We assume this to mean that she is stating that she informed Trish Fitzgerald, Office Manager . It is the Respondent’s position that there is no record of this in writing however if the notification was verbal as it may well have been, Trish Fitzgerald did not inform Senior Management (Edward Moore, Operations Manager  nor Anne Maria Moore, proprietor) of this notification of pregnancy in relation to the Complainant . 

As outlined in our detailed submission below, the Company acknowledges that Trish Fitzgerald communicated via an erroneous and unauthorised email to the Complainant  purporting to terminate her employment, whilst the Complainant  was on sick leave. Trish Fitzgerald was herself on probation and went on sick leave herself from 21 May 2025 and did not return to work thereafter as she resigned from the Company with her end date being 13 June 2025. Accordingly, though the Respondent planned to address formally with Trish Fitzgerald, this whole distressing and concerning  incident surrounding the Complainant ,  via a probationary performance management process (a meeting was scheduled with Ms. Fitzgerald for 21 May 2025), they did not get an opportunity to do so before Ms. Fitzgerald departed her employment.  As outlined below, the Company’s immediate priority was to retract on behalf of the Company the erroneous and unauthorised communication from Ms. Fitzgerald to the Complainant  and to engage with the Complainant  on her welfare and wellbeing and a possible return to work from her period of sick leave when she was fit and able to do so and the Respondent’s senior management team did not become aware of the Complainant ’s pregnancy until she informed them about it in this subsequent engagement as is apparent below and from email communications, which are numerous.

 RESPONDENTS FACTUAL ACCOUNT OF THE CASE:

The Complainant  was employed by the Respondent, Beech Lodge Care Facility, Kilmallock Road, Kilmallock, Co. Limerick, as an Administrative Assistant, from 13 March 2025 to 2nd May 2025, under a permanent contract of employment.

 Probation / Performance issues:  It is acknowledged that during the Complainant ’s probationary period, performance issues had been raised.  It is acknowledged that a performance discussion took place between the Complainant  and her line Manager  Trish Fitzgerald on 02 April 2025, of which the Director of Nursing, Mr. J. (Name redacted) was also in attendance. Neither Mr. J. nor Ms. Fitzgerald are currently employed and there was no formal follow up documentation on record with the Complainant, from this discussion. 

The Complainant in her complaint form to the WRC references numerous alleged distressing interactions with her line Manager,  Ms. Fitzgerald around alleged performance and/or conduct issues. The Respondent senior management team was not aware at the time of any of these alleged occurrences nor the Complainant’s upset or distress in this regard as she had not raised it informally or formally with them via the grievance process.  

The Complainant alleges a linkage between:

i)                      her notification of her pregnancy to her line Manager.

ii)                    this subsequent alleged upsetting treatment she received from her line Manager.

 iii) the subsequent email from her line Manager  she received whilst on sick leave, advising her not to return to work eg: the erroneous dismissal.  

It is the Respondent position that senior management had no knowledge in relation to point i) and ii) and acted swiftly to cancel the erroneous and unauthorised termination (point iii) once they became aware of same, as evidenced below and in emails supplied. 

Sick Leave: The Complainant  was on sick leave from 07 April 2025 and had not returned to work by the time of her resignation (effective 02 May 2025.). The probationary period and the probationary review process was paused during the Complainant’s period of sick leave.

 On Thursday 10 April 2025, whilst on sick leave, the Complainant  received an email from Trish Fitzgerald (her line Manager ) informing her that ‘management had decided not to have her return’ thereby inferring that her employment had been terminated. The individual who issued this communication did not have the authority/approval to terminate the Complainant ’s employment. It is not known whether the sending of this email was an error of judgement, reckless, intentional or simply an honest mistake on the part of Ms. Fitzgerald, who is no longer employed by the Respondent.

It is important to note that notwithstanding the above unauthorised and erroneous email communication, the Respondent Company at this point did NOT actually terminate the Complainant ’s employment. She remained on the Company payroll system and employed with the Company as per revenue records. Though the Complainant  may not have been aware of this until she contacted the Company and received a response from Edward Moore to let her know her employment was not terminated.

 On Friday  11 April 2025 at 11.55am the Complainant  emailed the proprietor Anne Maria Moore and stated that she was “very sorry to hear that the company is terminating my contract. I had wished to continue my employment. Unfortunately, I feel I will need to contact the work relations commission due to treatment of me during my time with the company”.  

 On the same date Friday 11 April 2025, the Complainant  lodged this complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission at 12.40pm,  The Company received notification of the complaint via letter from the WRC received on 17 April 2025.

 It is noted that Saturday and Sunday 12/13 April 2025 were non-office hours.

 On Monday 14 April 2025, upon becoming aware (via the email of 11 April 2025 from the Complainant ), that the Complainant  had been wrongly advised by her line Manager  Trish Fitzgerald, that her employment was terminated, the Respondent (Operations Manager  Edward Moore) wrote to the Complainant  confirming that she had not been terminated and that her employment status was recorded as on sick leave only. The Respondent further confirmed that they had no knowledge or notice of the Complainant ’s pregnancy at that time and invited the Complainant  to attend a meeting to discuss matters further.

 On 16 April 2025, the Complainant  replied by email confirming that she was pleased to hear that her employment had not been terminated as she has wished to continue in employment and that she was happy to attend the proposed meeting.

 On 17 April 2025, a meeting took place between the Respondent Operations Manager , Edward Moore and the Complainant . The Respondent sincerely apologised for any distress and upset caused by the email of 10 April and assured the Complainant  that she was still employed. The Respondent viewed this as an amicable and constructive meeting and looked forward to welcoming the employee back to work when she was fit and able to do so. Following this meeting, the Respondent issued a follow‑up email reconfirming that the Complainant  had not been terminated, that she remained on probation (which was paused due to sick leave), and that performance issues as previously identified would be addressed upon her return to work. In an attempt to resolve issues with the internal working relationships, the Respondent also confirmed that the Complainant  would report to Edward Moore, Operations Manager , rather than Trish Fitzgerald.

 On 22 April 2025, Edward Moore contacted the Complainant  by email regarding her anticipated return to work as the employee was still on a period of sick leave.

 On 23 April 2025, the Complainant  emailed the Respondent advising that she was required to attend Accident and Emergency. The Respondent (Edward Moore) replied expressing concern and advised that he would await a further update regarding her condition.

 On 28 April 2025, the Complainant  emailed the Respondent to say that she “won’t make it into work today and I am going to see if I can get into the dr today. I’ll let you know what I find out.” thereby indicating active engagement with the absence policy and that she viewed herself as still employed, which of course she was.

 On 2 May 2025, the Respondent Edward Moore attempted to contact the Complainant  by telephone to carry out a welfare check and subsequently issued a follow‑up email, having not received any further update regarding her absence.

 Later again on 2 May 2025, the Complainant  responded by email stating: “After consulting with my GP and legal counsel, I will not be returning.”

 On 2 May 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant  requesting that she reconsider what the Respondent understood to be her resignation from employment.

 On 7 May 2025, the Complainant  emailed Edward Moore advising that she would only reconsider her resignation if her working days were reduced from five days to three days per week, her working hours were increased to 8–10 hours per day, and she would not have to work with Trish Fitzgerald. 

On 9 May 2025, Edward wrote again via email to the Complainant  advising that the requested changes were unfortunately not feasible for the role, which was contracted for specific hours and availability due to the operational requirements of the nursing home. The Respondent confirmed that, while the Complainant  would no longer report to Trish, she would still be required to work with her as part of her role. The Respondent offered the Complainant  the Grievance Policy, and asked the Complainant  to have one ‘final think about her resignation’.  

 On 14 May 2025, the Complainant  confirmed by email that she would not be returning to work, hence confirming her resignation.

 On 19 May 2025, the Respondent accepted the Complainant ’s resignation and issued a Confirmation of Employment letter via email as per standard company practice 

 The Respondent then processed the termination from Company systems and the end date was set as 02 May 2025 which was the date the original resignation email was received as per above.

 On 20 May 2025, the Complainant  emailed the Respondent stating that she did not agree that she had resigned and that in fact she was not agreeing to reinstatement, and she also submitted a data subject access request, which was actioned by the Respondent.

LEGISLATION:                  

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT, 1977

Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2015, Section 1:

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”

 No dismissal within the meaning of the Act occurred, as the Complainant  resigned voluntarily and not in circumstances attributable to any repudiatory breach by the Respondent.

 Having regard to all the facts the Respondent is of the belief that there was no conduct by the Respondent that justified the Complainant s decision to regard herself as constructively dismissed as defined in the Unfair Dismissals Acts:

“(7) 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 rights commissioner, the Tribunal or the Circuit 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 or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7 (2) of this Act.”

 RELEVANT CASE LAW & APPLICATION OF SAME:

 Constructive Dismissal:

Contract Test: Does the employer’s conduct amount to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment and in such circumstances the employee would be “entitled” to resign his position? This requires that an employer be “guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance” as held in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd. v Sharp.

 Reasonableness Test: The conduct and reasonableness of the Respondent is a crucial factor in order to ascertain if the Complainant  had no option but to terminate the employment. This was discussed in Joyce V Brothers of Charity (2009) E.L.R 328:   

“It would appear to this division of the Tribunal therefore that it must be satisfied that the employee is either entitled or is acting reasonably in terminating the contract. In order for an employee to meet either of these criteria (Section 1 (b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1973 -1993) the conduct referred to in the Act cannot be petty or minor but must be something serious or significant which goes to the root of the relationship between the employer and the employee”.   

In Berber v Dunnes Stores Finnegan J stated: 

“The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is as such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it”.

It is the Company’s assertion that the Complainant  resigned during the course of a process and dialogue where the Company was regularly and wholeheartedly engaging with her. 

 This process involved meeting with the Complainant  demonstrating the Company’s commitment in both time and resources to remedying any erroneous and unauthorised communications in relation to her employment status and also assisting the Complainant  both with any performance issues and any workplace difficulties and also in relation to supporting her from a welfare perspective during her period of absence.

 It is acknowledged that difficulties had arisen in the employment relationship between the Complainant  and her line Manager . It is also acknowledged that there were performance issues identified during the probationary period, however this process was very much in it’s infancy and no intention to terminate the Complainant’s employment under the probationary clause had been communicated by the Respondent.

 Secondly it is acknowledged that a serious communications error occurred whereby an email was sent to the Complainant  from Trish Fitzgerald, Office Manager , with purported but unfounded authority to terminate the employment relationship.  This was swiftly remedied and the Respondent was actively engaging with the Complainant  and had made efforts to address the erroneous communication and any ensuring workplace relations difficulties that may have arisen. The Complainant  was met in person and the grievance process was also offered to her.

 It is noted that the Respondent did not terminate the Complainant  from the Company payroll until after she confirmed her non-return to the workplace after a series of communications which carried on up to 20 May 2025. 

The employee must give the employer an opportunity to resolve any grievances by engaging in the internal grievance procedures before resigning; by failing to do so, the Complainant  did not provide the Respondent with a sufficient opportunity or the necessary time to properly investigate and resolve any matters of concern before deciding to resign.

 It is the Respondent’s position that whilst the Complainant  initially may have viewed herself as dismissed for a period of only 2 working days 10/04/25 to 11/04/25, thereafter as and from 14/04/25, having received clarification that she was not in fact dismissed and following extensive dialogue and being offered the grievance process, the Complainant  decided herself that she did not want to return to her position after a period of sick leave for her own personal reasons including that the hours / days of work she was employed for were no longer suitable to her.

 MITIGATION OF LOSS

In relation to redress, Section 7(1) of the Act, empowers an Adjudication Officer to compensation to a successful Complainant . 

The Complainant  has not confirmed whether or not she has secured employment since her resignation from the Respondent.  

It is noted that at the point of resignation, the Complainant  had been absent from work on a period of sick leave and accordingly  depending on the duration of  her ongoing incapacity and non-fitness for work she may not have been in a position to mitigate her loss, by reason of said incapacity.

The Respondent  requested that the Complainant  provide details of her current employment status and earnings as well as detailed evidence of her attempts to secure alternative employment since her resignation from the Respondent and/or details of any periods of incapacity including periods where she was in receipt of illness benefit.

In calculating compensation, the Adjudicator is required to consider the Complainant ’s attempts to mitigate her losses following her resignation, and any periods of time where she was not available for work.

As was set out by the Labour Court in Smith v Leddy UDD 74/2019 the Complainant  is required to show “evidence that employees who are dismissed spend a significant portion of each normal working day, while they are out of work, engaged actively in the pursuit of alternative employment”. 

In summary the facts of the case are as follows:

 The Respondent did not terminate the Complainant ’s employment. Any communication purporting to do so on 10 April 2025 was issued in error by an individual who did not have the authority to terminate employment and was promptly corrected by the Respondent once it came to its attention.

 In line with the above being an erroneous and unauthorised communication, the Respondent never actually terminated the Complainant  employee from their payroll on or around 10 April 2025. She was not removed from payroll until after she resigned of her own volition on 02 May 2025 and in effect this termination was not effected by the Respondent until they checked and re-checked with the Complainant  (email communications up to 20 May 2025) if she wished to reconsider her resignation and stay in employment. 

 The Respondent acted reasonably and appropriately at all times by:

i) immediately clarifying on 14 April 2025, that the Complainant  had not been terminated (this was clarified within 2 working days as soon as it came to senior management’s attention).

ii) not removing the Complainant  from company payroll on 10 April 2025 as no dismissal occurred on that date.

iii) confirming her employment status as on sick leave; iv) confirming that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant ’s pregnancy at the relevant time;

v) engaging with the Complainant , including meeting with her and outlining the next steps upon her return to work; and attempting to conduct welfare checks and encouraging continued engagement.

 The Complainant  was on probation, and performance issues had been identified. The Respondent was entitled to plan to address these issues in a structured and reasonable manner upon the Complainant ’s return to work.

The Complainant ’s decision to state that she would “not be returning” and her subsequent refusal to return to work constituted a resignation, which the Respondent made reasonable efforts to have the Complainant  reconsider.

 The Complainant  has not demonstrated that her decision to resign was reasonable in circumstances where:

she had been expressly advised that she was not dismissed;

the Respondent sought to meet with her, support her return to work, and clarify reporting arrangements, alternative courses of action were available to her, including continued engagement with the Respondent and participation in the probation and performance management process and opting to raise any issues of concern via the internal Grievance process.

 The Complainant  had the option of continuing in employment and remaining on sick leave until such time as she was deemed medically fit to return to work. 

 The Respondent further acted reasonably by asking the Complainant  to re-consider her resignation.  When she communicated that she would do so in limited circumstances, the Respondent again acted reasonably in considering her requests and responding clearly and transparently as to why the requested contractual changes were not feasible for the role.

 In all the circumstances, the employment relationship came to an end by reason of the Complainant ’s own decision not to return to work, and not as a result of any act or omission on the part of the Respondent. 

Accordingly, we request that the Adjudicator find that the Complainant  was not dismissed nor constructively dismissed contrary to the Act.   

The Complainant  gave evidence to the Hearing that she earned 885 Euros fortnightly for 30 hours per week.. She advised she disclosed her pregnancy to Trish Fitzgerald after 2 weeks. She went through her statement as outlined above in her summary regarding comments made to her about her pregnancy brain and body odour after she informed Ms. Fitzgerald of her pregnancy. She was informed there would need to be a risk assessment due to her pregnancy. She advised she received an email on April 10th that she should not return to work and took it she had received her final payslip. She informed the Respondent on April 11th she had submitted an Unfair Dismissal complaint to the WRC. She confirmed she received an email from Mr Edward Moore after sending this email and was informed Ms. Fitzgerald had erroneously sent the email regarding her termination and it was an internal letter. She considered the offer to return to work as an offer of reinstatement. She advised her health was not improving and she consulted with the GP and her Husband and was advised she could only return if her hours were changed and she had to consider she was cycling a country road for 20 minutes each way to work while pregnant and not in good health. She advised her request was denied. She advised she rejected the reinstatement offer as she felt it was given in bad faith. She advised she was contacted by phone by Trish Fitzgerald and the call confirmed her fears regarding returning to work. She advised they tried mediation but it failed.

The Complainant was cross examined by the Respondent Representative, Ms Grainne Moran and was asked after she got the email from Trish Fitzgerald did she contact her and she replied no. She advised she tried to contact Ms. AM Moore to inform her of her decision to send a complaint to the WRC. She sent the message by email to the info work email and the Director of Nursing as she did not have Ms. Moore’s email and hoped he would be sent on to Ms. Moore. She agreed the email was sent at 11.55 on April 11th and she submitted the WRC complaint at 12.40 that same day and did she consider waiting for a response to the internal email. It was put to the Complainant she was going to proceed with her WRC complaint regardless of a reply. It was put to the Complainant did she know Ms. Moore was working from home at the time. The Complainant advised she knew Ms. Moore was ill at the time and working from home but did not know her hours of work.

With regard to the Complainants pregnancy she was asked did she inform Ms. Moore and she advised she had only met Ms. Moore twice and she had informed Ms. Fitzgerald the day after finding out she was pregnant. The Complainant was asked did she inform Ms. Fitzgerald in writing of her pregnancy and she was unsure if it was in writing but that she did receive an email from the Director of Nursing regarding a risk assessment as a result. She was asked did she agree the next steps and advised no but did recall a discussion with the Director of Nursing about the risk of cycling to work. The Complainant was asked did she agree that the purported termination was retracted the next working day after it issued and she agreed it was. She was asked to confirm any termination was nullified by the Respondent but she felt this was back tracking by the Respondent because she had submitted a WRC complaint. She advised they had a face to face meeting and she wanted to resolve the situation and get her job back but considered her employment terminated. She advised she was glad to hear they did not consider her employment terminated and did she agree they had a positive meeting on May 17th to try resolve the issue but that issues remained. The Complainant was asked about her meeting with Mr Edward Moore and to confirm she was reinstated and said she understood it would be looked at by the end of the meeting. She was asked to confirm any termination was retracted and she confirmed that was the case. She was asked to confirm Mr. Moore confirmed to her that she was still on sick leave and she agreed. She was asked did she agree to continue sending in sick certificates and she agreed she did. The Complainant added she was not able to get to a GP. The Complainant was asked did Mr. Moore discuss with her that she would report into him and not Ms. Fitzgerald and she agreed he did and that agreed they would have a sit down with Ms. Fitzgerald to “clear the air”. She agreed they discussed that normal performance management would continue during her probation and that she was sent an email summarising the meeting. The Complainant was asked how she felt about the job and replied it was different to what was discussed at interview and she felt she was being managed out on paper. She felt she would be put in the same position when reporting to Mr. Moore and advised she mentioned this to Mr. Moore in their face to face meeting. She was asked to confirm she received the email retracting the dismissal and confirmation it was a  mistake and the Complainant did not believe this and believed she was constructively dismissed. She advised Ms. Fitgerald had the title of Office and HR Manager in her emails and left shortly after the Complainant. The Complainant was asked about her communication regarding not being able to come in for work on April 28th and why she would do this if she felt terminated. She advised she understood she would be getting a new contract. The Complainant was asked that 11 days had passed and they had heard nothing from her about when she would be returning and Mr. Moore rang her and got no reply and followed up late that day with an email and received the reply from the Complainant “I will not be returning”. The Complainant advised it was her decision to reject reinstatement after discussion with her GP, her Husband and a legal advisor as she feared she would be subsequently dismissed. She felt the Company would find silly things to dismiss her but agreed this was speculative but it was her belief. The Complainant was asked to confirm she was still on the payroll on May 2nd but advised she did not know this as she had no payslips. It was put to the Complainant that Mr. Moore had wrote to her to confirm she was on sick leave and not terminated and the Complainant advised she did not trust him. She was asked to confirm Mr. Moore wrote to her on May 8th to reconsider her resignation and that she was assured to take her time and that her job was still open or her and the Complainant agreed this happened. It was put to the Complainant that over the period of a few weeks she changed her views on the situation and was just seeking compensation and the Complainant advised she was wiling to accept the offer to return if it was on reasonable terms. The Complainant was asked to agree she changed her mind after April 28th and she denied this. It was put to the Complainant that she sought a change to her hours and days of work. The Complainant stated she was not comfortable cycling to work since she found out she was pregnant and the Respondent Representative put it to her that this was a separate issue and could be dealt with in the risk assessment. The Complainant advised she considered it pivotal to her accepting reinstatement and she had a fear of being terminated again. It was put to the Complainant that she just wanted different hours and she disagreed and advised she would need her wages to support the baby. The Complainant was asked did she have any Doctors letter about her hours and she advised she did discuss it with her Doctor but that Mr. Moore had rejected the possible change. It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent would consider any request for a change but she advised she was left with the feeling it was not open for discussion. The Complainant agreed that she was offered to report to Mr. Moore but felt that Ms. Fitzgerald would find a way to dismiss her again. She advised she would have to work with Ms. Fitzgerald either way. She was asked did Mr. Moore not say he would do the best to manage that but the Complainant stated she shared the same office and computer with Ms. Fitzgerald and she did not want to share an office with her going forward and they did not have a healthy relationship and was hoping one of them would move on and they would be fighting over the same space and that she would have been happy to be moved to another room and she had discussed this with Mr. Moore in their face to face meeting. The Complainant was asked did she ever raise a grievance against Ms. Fitzgerald and she advised no and that she had hoped they would resolve it between themselves. It was put to the Complainant that Mr. Moore offered her the use of the grievance procedure and why she did not stay in the job and initiate the grievance procedure and the Complainant replied she felt he was not acting in good faith and based on her advice this was not an option she wished to pursue. With regard to the requested change in working hours and days it was put to the Complainant that from an operating perspective that there were issues with her request and they would need to hire someone else for two days a week to cover her. The Complainant thought there were reasonable alternatives open to the Company to resolve this. It was put to the Complainant that the Company accepted that the email sent by Ms. Fitzgerald was a mistake but that it was immediately corrected and retracted and that Mr. Moore met with her to try resolve the situation. The Complainant stated “the email was what it said”.  The Complainant was asked what would have reasonably resolved the issue for her and she advised “altering her hours would have been fine”.

Ms. Patricia (Trish) Fitzgerald attended the Hearing at the request of the Complainant and gave evidence under affirmation.  Ms. Fitzgerald was no longer an employee of the Respondent at the date of the Hearing. Ms. Fitzgerald was asked by the Complainant what was her role. She advised it was HR and Office Manager. She was asked what HR tasks she performed; She advised she handled all HR admin, salary data, interviews, hiring, training, payroll, discipline procedures and running the office. She confirmed she sent the email to the Complainant regarding her not returning to work and stated she did not want her coming to work on a bike. She advised the decision to terminate was discussed with Edward Moore and the Proprietor. She advised she could not get the Complainant on the phone to tell her and decided to send an email. She advised she sent an email to Ms. L in payroll to remove the Complainant from the payroll but was then told to stop it and do nothing. She stated she had a call from Grainne Moran and was told to ring back the Complainant and tell her the email was sent in error and ensure she returned to work. She advised no decision in the company to dismiss was made on your own. She confirmed she was not disciplined by the Respondent for sending the email. She confirmed she had terminated staff before.

Ms. Fitzgerald was cross examined by the Representative for the Respondent. She confirmed the offer later stated she was the Office Manager. She confirmed she commenced employment in February 2025 and left the employment in June 2025. She advised she was brought in for her ability to do HR which she estimated was about 75% of the role. She advised any dismissals were agreed in collaboration with the Director of Nursing and the Proprietor. She was asked did she have sole discretion to dismiss and she advised no it was a joint decision. With regard to the email of April 10th sent to the Complainant advising her not to return to work she was asked did someone instruct her to send that email and she  advised she and Edward Moore prepared it and she typed it out with him sitting beside her. She confirmed the intent was to tell the Complainant by phone but they tried a few times during the day and could not get her so they sent the email. She advised she and Edward spoke to Anne Marie Moore, who was in hospital, the day before on the issue. She advised that the Complainant went on sick leave on April 7th and the decision was made before that to dismiss her. Ms Fitzgerald agreed the Complainant was on probation and advised she had a discussion with her during a review at the end of March that her job was at risk and they had a good discussion about the performance issue and came up with a plan and advised they did not go over the risk assessment. Ms. Fitzgerald was asked how did it change from a supportive meeting to a decision to dismiss. Ms. Fitgerald advised there were issues being discussed by the Complainant, which were confidential family information, in the open office and it could reflect badly on the Respondent. Ms. Fitzgerald advised that she felt the Complainant knew she was going to be dismissed before she went out sick. She confirmed she did not copy other Managers on the email as it was discussed the previous day with Anne Marie Moore and it was written in conjunction with Edward Mooore. Ms. Fitzgerald was asked did the Complainant tell her she was pregnant and she advised she mentioned it casually around March 13th. She said the Complainant said to her and the Director of Nursing “I apologise for the way I may be acting as Im pregnant”. Ms. Fitzerald advised she mentioned to Ms. Moore that the Complainant was pregnant by phone but this was part of just a daily update. She advised the Complainant was a little rattled as everything was coming together; her pregnancy, the issue with confidentiality, her performance, etc. Ms. Fitgerald was asked the main reason for the termination of employment and she advised it was probably performance. The Complainant then took Ms. Fitzgerald through a lot of screen shots she had been provided of issues Ms. Fitzgerlad had raised with the Respondent  at the end of her own employment. Ms. Fitzgerald was questioned by the Respondent Representative as to the purpose of sharing this information with the Complainant and she advised it was to show the decision to dismiss was not hers alone. Ms. Fitzgerald stated that Mr. Moore had left a notebook on his desk which outlined a strategy to end the Complainants employment and she took a screen shot of it. Ms. Fitzgerald stated the strategy was to bring the Complainant  back to work and manage her from there. She advised that she and Edward were to manage her performance and “get her out”.

The Proprietor, Ms. Anne Marie Moore gave evidence under affirmation. She advised she and her Husband owned two Nursing homes and she was in hospital for a number of weeks before and recovering at the time of the events. She advised she met the Complainant once or twice. He advised she became aware of the email from her Director of Nursing and she was shocked by it and was not party to preparing it and had never sacked anyone by email. She advised she takes external advice on a lot of things and would never dismiss anyone on maternity leave and she worked in a caring industry and that it would go against the grain for her to do so. She knew there were performance issues with the Complainant but understood they were being dealt with normally. She advised she was shocked to see the email and was aware it was illegal to dismiss a pregnant woman. She advised the Complainant should have been given every chance to work things out irrespective of the cycling to work issue. Ms. Moore  agreed she may have been on a call where the termination of the Complainants employment was discussed and that the Complainant was only there “a wet week” and should be given the chance to sort out any performance issues. She gave details of her own medical issue and time in hospital and advised she was shocked the dismissal could have happened they way it did. Ms. Moore confirmed something like this never happened before and that Ms. Fitgerald did a lot of HR admin tasks. She advised the Complainant needed a lot of support and she did not work well with Ms. Fitzgerald. She understood a plan was in place to support the Complainant at work and that 85% of staff were female and they were well used to staff being pregnant and dealing with the requirements. She advised she did not authorise the termination of the Complainants employment and was not aware of her pregnancy. Ms. Moore was asked about the screen shots provided and stated she had seen them but they did not relate to the Complainant. She advised she had not seen the email of April 17th and only saw it when the WRC copied it. Ms. Moore was cross examined by the Complainant and asked was she aware of any reprimands concerning her performance and she advised she would have to go through her emails but that her performance was definitely discussed in phone calls and she recalled a call where she said they should see if they could work out work hours that suited the Complainant and the business needs. She was asked how long she was not actively involved in the business die to her sickness and advised hospitalisation  commenced after Christmas and continued after April with about 3 months home rest. She stated she was only involved in calls once a week or every second week and manly to do with overseas recruitment and Nursing appointments. She advised she was not copied on all emails and was not copied on the  email from Ms. Fitgerald and only became aware of it when it was brought to her attention by the Director of Nursing who knew this was not a correct way to terminate a persons employment and who thought it was an accident. She was asked was she involved in a phone call on April 4th regarding the Complainants termination of employment and she advised she was involved in a call but it was only to do with the Complainants probation. She advised she gets a huge amount of calls due to running two Nursing Homes and having a staff of between 60 and 85 at times. She advised she was in business 34 years and never brought before the WRC before.

The Respondent Representative asked Ms. Moore had Ms. Fitgerald been reprimanded over the email and she advised no but she was on probation and she would have raised the issue at her future probation review which was scheduled for May 21st but Ms. Fitzergald went on sick leave and then resigned so Ms. Moore never got the opportunity to raise the issue with her. She advised Ms. Fitzgerald should have been aware they never do business that way and was not following policy.

The Facilities Manager  (and son of the Proprietor) Mr. Edward Moore gave evidence. He advised he had just commenced employment on April 2nd 2025 and had not worked in the business up to then and was just back from London. He advised he met the Complainant in the office every day and that she received all her directions/work from Ms. Fitzgerald. He advised he saw the email from Ms. Fitgerald to the Complainant and her reply and he could not believe it. He knew there were issues but that it was a family business and they always worked out issues and he confirmed he did not authorise the dismissal and he did not have the authority to do so. He advised the Director of Nursing was above him and Ms. Fitgerald did a lot of hr admin tasks. He advised Ms. Fitzgerald did not have the higher level of HR skills or responsibility for staff. He advised the Director of Nursing had responsibility for staff and they never dismissed anyone by email before and they like to look after people. He stated it was totally false that he sat down and created the dismissal email with Ms. Fitzgerald and he advised he was in the Limerick Nursing Home for the days afterwards and he asked Ms. Fitgerald about the email and she told him she did it so the Complainant would not have to cycle to work. He advised he did not believe Ms. Fitzgerald had the authority to dismiss and he did not agree with the manner in which it was done. He advised he was aware  that the Complainant and Ms. Fitzgerald had issues between them and that there were performance issues. He advised he got advice on how to deal with the situation and got step by step advice and not to take the Complainant off the payroll and that he tried to get the Complainant to come back to work and he told her she was not dismissed and invited her to a meeting where she told him she was glad to hear she was not terminated and agreed to come in to discuss things and that she viewed this as an apology from the Company. He thought this meeting went well and cleared the air and he informed the Complainant that she would be working for him and the Complainant said she had to go away and thing about things. He confirmed he received the email of April 28th and tried to call the Complainant a few times to check on her welfare. He advised he got an email from the Complainant stating she would not be returning to work.  He advised he was confused by this as he understood she was coming back and he asked her to reconsider and wrote to her and the Complainant asked for reduced hours/days and not to work with Ms. Fitzgerald and he had to look at the viability of her request and decided they could not get someone for 2 days to cover her the Complainant and the Complainant did not present any medical evidence to support her request for a reduced working week. He was asked what he thought the reason for the Complainant refusing to return to work was and he thought it was to do with her hours and working with Ms. Fitzgerald. He confirmed he offered her a grievance policy but she never raised one. He said she refused reinstatement and there was no further communications after that. He said he asked Ms. Fitgerald about the Complainants pregnancy and she had said she had never been notified about it. He again denied that the email was a result of collaboration with Ms. Fitgerald and was completely false. On cross examination Mr. Moore confirmed he did not have access to the info email and he was not aware of the email to Payroll from Ms. Fitgerald to stop employment. He advised he was not at a meeting where the Complainants pregnancy was discussed.

Findings;

The Law;

“Section 6. (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended 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.

(2) 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, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following…….

(f) the employee’s pregnancy, attendance at ante-natal classes, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected therewith,”

The first issue to be determined concerns whether or not the Complainant is qualified to pursue a complaint under the Act. She commenced employment on March 13th 2025 ; her employment was summarily terminated by email on April 10th 2025. That being the case, the Complainant does not have one year’s continuous service with the Respondent. An employee who is dismissed by reason, inter alia, of her pregnancy is exempted from the requirement to have one year’s continuous service with their employer in order to qualify under the Act. However, the burden of proving that her dismissal is ‘wholly or mainly’ as a result of her pregnancy rests on the Complainant in such a case under the Act.

The core issues in this complaint are;

(a) was the Complainant entitled to consider herself dismissed

(b) was it reasonable for the Complainant to consider that Ms. Fitzgerald had the authority to dismiss an employee

(c) was the Complainant dismissed wholly or mainly due to her pregnancy,

(d) was it reasonable of the Complainant not to accept the Respondents repeated attempts to persuade  her she was not dismissed and report to a different Manager

and (e) what contribution the Complainants personal circumstances i.e. her method of traveling to work and her desire to work 3 days and not 5 days per week contributed to her not accepting the Respondent immediate confirmation/withdrawal of her dismissal.

While the Respondent Representative went to great lengths to defend the Respondents position that Ms Fitgerald did not have the role or authority to dismiss the Complainant, nothing changes the situation that the Complainant was dismissed by Ms. Fitgerald, who was a member of Management and the Complainant was entitled to view that her employment was terminated based on the email she received from her Line Manager. Some lengths were gone into to establish Ms. Fitzgeralds role and authority to dismiss and this situation was certainly impacted by the unfortunate absence due to ill health by Ms. Moore but it was fair and reasonable tor the Complainant to view the email from Ms. Fitzgerald that she had the authority to terminate her employment, irrespective of her job  title. The Complainant was an employee with about five weeks service and could not be expected to question whether her Manager had the authority or not to dismiss her at that point. I am also satisfied from the evidence that Ms. Fitzgerald (and therefore the Respondent) was on notice of the Complainants pregnancy and that her pregnancy was a contributory factor in the dismissal. This is evidenced by the Complainant account of her interactions with Ms. Fitzgerald concerning her body odour, having to shower on arrival at work and the comments regarding a “pregnancy brain”. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the Complainants pregnancy was a factor in her dismissal. Her termination of employment was also a dismissal and not a constructive dismissal and took effect from April 10th 2025. The Respondent went to great lengths to inform the Complainant  that she was not dismissed and her job was open to her once she was fit to return to work and of course this is very significant in the series of events. This offer of reinstatement was offered immediately the Owners of the business found out what had happened. They offered the Complainant the opportunity to work under a different Manager but as she would still have to work on a daily and constant basis with the person who dismissed her and was still under probation this was a situation the Complainant felt may work out unfairly in her eyes. The request from the Complainant to work less days/hours while understandable was not practical and the denial of this request contributed to the Complainants refusal to accept the offer of reinstatement. There was significant variance in the evidence of the Respondent parties regarding the events leading up to the dismissal of the Complainant and the writing of the email and this gave credence to me considering the Complainants concerns regarding returning to work. However,  she tried at the time to amend her working days/hours as a condition of returning to work and this was not a ground to refuse to offer to return to work. The Complainant supplied her efforts to obtain work and this were on the basic side of application and effort but I note her rural location and stated transport limitations and this has to be considered also as to what jobs may be reasonable for the Complainant to apply for.

Based on all the evidence I find that the Complainant was dismissed mainly due to her pregnancy but that she acted unreasonably in refusing the immediate offer of reinstatement and that her personal circumstances contributed, to a degree, to her declining the immediate reinstatement of her employment. This has to be a major contributory factor in considering compensation which is covered by Sections 7 of the Act. I also note that these type of events appear to be not the norm for the Respondent and that the unfortunate ill health of Ms. AM Moore and her absence at the time of the dismissal was a contributory factor to the way in which the Complainant was dismissed.

Redress for unfair dismissal.

“7.—(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following F50[the adjudication officer or the Labour Court], as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

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

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

F51[(c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

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

and the references in the foregoing paragraphs to an employer shall be construed, in a case where the ownership of the business of the employer changes after the dismissal, as references to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership.]

F52[(1A) In relation to a case falling within section 6(2)(ba) the reference in subsection (1)(c)(i) to 104 weeks has effect as if it were a reference to 260 weeks.]

(2) 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, F53[…]

F51[(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. “

In determining the amount of compensation payable, an Adjudicator is obliged under s.7(2)(c) of the Act to look at the steps taken by the Complainant to minimise her financial losses after the termination of her employment.

The Complainant submitted a range of jobs she applied (35) for after she was dismissed and stated she did not get work during the period up to the birth of her child and during her maternity leave and that she was denied getting any statutory sick pay or maternity benefit as she did not have enough PRSI contributions to qualify for either due to her dismissal. She summarised her losses as

 Loss of earnings (termination to birth of child): €13,717.50

Loss of maternity pay (would have received): €7,514.00

Total financial loss (gross): €21,231.50

Having considered all the factors in this case, and particularly I must be conscious of the Complainants decision not to accept the reasonable offer of immediate reinstatement and offer of reporting to Mr. Moore instead of Ms. Fitzgerald after being dismissed and the fact the Complainant would only consider returning to work on a 3 day week and amended hours, which proposal did not work for the Respondent operationally,  I consider 6,000 Euros as being the appropriate and fair compensation for the Complainants unfair dismissal.

I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and award her 6,000 Euros compensation for the unfair dismissal to be paid by the Respondent within 42 days of the date of this Decision.

Unfair Dismissal