Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ciaran  Duffy

Ez Doors Limited

Representatives

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-00074204-001

08/08/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Wood Manufacturer and Finisher. At the date of the termination of his employment, his gross weekly remuneration was €828.75. The Complainant stated that he was unfairly dismissed on 4 April 2025. The Respondent accepts that the dismissal was procedurally unfair but asserted that concerns regarding the quality of work carried out by the Complainant and a co-worker constituted the basis for the termination of employment.

The Complainant gave evidence that on 4 April 2025, he and a co-worker returned to the Respondent's workshop following the completion of a job. Upon their return, they were met by the Respondent who expressed dissatisfaction with work carried out at a client site.

The Complainant stated that the work complained of had been completed by his co-worker. He said that the Respondent informed both employees to "look for work" and verbally provided them with two weeks' notice.

The Complainant maintained that no issues of this nature had arisen previously during his employment and that he had not been the subject of any disciplinary process. He was not invited to an investigation meeting, was not advised that his employment was at risk, was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him and was not afforded any right of appeal.

The Complainant further stated that he had offered to return to the client site and carry out any remedial works that might be required. He said that the Respondent refused to permit him to do so.

Following the termination of his employment, the Complainant secured alternative employment approximately two weeks later. While he earned a slightly lower hourly rate in that employment, he worked approximately 2.5 additional hours per week and consequently earned a higher overall weekly income than he had earned with the Respondent.

The Respondent accepted that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

The Respondent stated that a client was dissatisfied with the standard of work carried out by the Complainant and his colleague. The Respondent gave evidence that the work was not completed to the client's satisfaction and that he was ultimately not paid for the job.

The Respondent stated that he personally had to return to the site to address the deficiencies complained of and complete remedial works. He submitted that the matter caused financial loss to the business and negatively affected the relationship with the client.

While acknowledging that no formal disciplinary process had been undertaken, the Respondent maintained that dissatisfaction with the work carried out constituted the reason for the termination of the Complainant's employment.

The Law

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides that "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, so far as is relevant, that the dismissal of an employee shall not be deemed to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from the conduct of the employee.

Section 6(6) provides that it is for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from a ground specified in subsection (4), or that there were other substantial grounds justifying it.

Section 6(7) provides that, in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had, where the Adjudication Officer considers it appropriate, to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct in relation to the dismissal, and to the extent of the employer's compliance with fair procedure.

Findings:

While the Respondent relied upon dissatisfaction with the quality of work completed at a client site, it was also accepted at the hearing that no fair procedure was followed prior to the dismissal.

Specifically, I noted that the Complainant was informed on 4 April 2025 that he should look for work and was verbally given two weeks' notice. No investigation was conducted. No allegations were formally put to the Complainant. He was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised, nor was he provided with any mechanism of appeal.

In considering whether the Respondent acted reasonably, I have had regard to the provisions of S.I. No. 146/2000, the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures). The Code requires that employees be advised of the complaints against them, be afforded an opportunity to respond, be permitted representation and be provided with a right of appeal. None of these procedural safeguards were afforded to the Complainant. I am therefore satisfied that the Respondent acted in breach of the principles of natural justice and fair procedures embodied in the Code.

Even if I accept the Respondent's evidence that the work was unsatisfactory and that he was required to return to the site personally to undertake remedial works, this does not relieve the Respondent of the obligation to afford fair procedures before deciding to dismiss an employee.

I also note the Complainant's evidence that he was willing to return to the client site and carry out any corrective works required but was not afforded that opportunity.

In all the circumstances, I find that the Respondent has failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that the dismissal was fair. I therefore find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015.

The Complainant does not seek reinstatement or re-engagement, having found alternative employment. I find that compensation is therefore the appropriate form of redress.

The Complainant stated that he obtained alternative employment approximately two weeks after the termination of his employment. While his hourly rate of pay was marginally lower, he worked additional hours and his overall earnings exceeded those earned in his employment with the Respondent.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant suffered only a limited period of financial loss and did not suffer any significant ongoing loss arising from the dismissal.

In circumstances where I have found that the Complainant did sustain a period of financial loss, albeit limited, the applicable provision is Section 7(1)(c)(i) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, which provides:

"if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid."

Having regard to the Respondent's complete failure to afford the Complainant any fair procedures, and having regard to the extent of the financial loss actually established in evidence, I consider it just and equitable to award compensation equivalent to the loss sustained during the two-week period in which the Complainant was without alternative income, that being the full extent of the quantifiable financial loss arising from the dismissal.

The Complainant's gross weekly remuneration was €828.75. Applying this to the two-week period during which he was without alternative income amounts to a financial loss of €1,657.50 (€828.75 × 2.)

I therefore order the Respondent to pay €1,657.50 to the Complainant in respect of the unfair dismissal.