ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062264
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Denes Jorge | Anjnj Limited trading as It Star |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00074933-001 | 29/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/07/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made, the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. In particular, the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. The Adjudication Officer will additionally (and where appropriate) hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
In circumstances where the fact of dismissal is not in issue, the evidential burden of truth (or the onus) rests with the Respondent/Employer to establish it has acted fairly and appropriately. Per Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977:
“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”
The Act suggests circumstances which might be relied on by an Employer to establish the Dismissal was not Unfair. Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 reads:
“Without prejudice to the generality of Subsection (1) of this section the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act, not to be an Unfair Dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:
(a) The Capability, Competence or Qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind for which he was employed by the employer to do;
(b) The conduct of the employee,
(c) the redundancy of the employee, and
(d)….”
Lastly, Per Section 6(6) of the 1977 Act in determining for the purposes of the Acts whether or not a 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 other of the specified grounds (as outlined in Sect 6(4) of the Act – conduct, redundancy etc.), or that there were other substantial reasons justifying the dismissal.
An Adjudication Officer should, in determining if a dismissal is unfair, have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal (per Section 6 (7) of the Unfair Dismissal Act of 1977).
In the case before me, the Employer seeks to establish that the dismissal is not an Unfair Dismissal as the Dismissal results wholly or mainly from the Redundancy of the Employee (as provided for in Section 6(4) of the 1977 Act aforesaid). In making this assertion, the Respondent will have to establish that the Redundancy is a genuine one (and not a sham or a ruse to get rid of an employee). Under Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act of1967 the Employer will have to demonstrate (in general terms) that the dismissal (by reason of Redundancy) is attributable wholly or mainly to the fact that the Employer is ceasing to trade, or proposes trading with fewer employees or that the work is to be done differently and that the Employee has not the requisite training or qualification to continue.
Further, even if there is a Redundancy situation there is an onus on the Employer to show that the selection of an individual (over and above other potential candidates) is fair and reasonable and that the selection process is fair and transparent. The Adjudication Officer must, in determining if a dismissal is unfair, have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the said dismissal (per Section 6(7) aforesaid).
It is further noted that in the case before me the Complainant herein has referred the complaint of having been unfairly dismissed by reason of his Unfair selection for Redundancy from his employment wherein he had worked for in excess of one year. Because the Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 29th of September 2025) issued within six months of his dismissal, I am satisfied that I (an Adjudication Officer so appointed) have jurisdiction to hear the within matter.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. I informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate and in order that matters might progress. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and provided his own account of the facts of the complaint that has brought these parties before the WRC. The Complainant came alone. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to swear an Oath/ make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided supporting documents when he first issued his complaint form. The Complaint Form is dated the 29th day of August 2025. The Complainant provided further documentation in the run up to the hearing date. The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by way of a process of unfair selection for Redundancy. His complaint form provided the following narrative: I commenced employment as a Sales Assistant on 18/08/2024. From the outset, I did not receive adequate training to perform my duties. I only had one initial conversation with the Director regarding some difficulties I was having with the system, but no proper training or support was ever provided. Throughout my employment, I was never informed that the store was experiencing financial difficulties or facing closure. On the contrary, after the change of manager, results appeared to be improving. Around one month before my dismissal, the manager João Nogueira hired a new staff member. From that point onwards, he started arriving at the store every day only at 12:30 or 13:00, despite his shift being scheduled to start at 10:00. As a result, I was left to open and run the store alone every morning, which placed me under excessive workload and responsibilities far beyond the role of Sales Assistant. In practice, I was working more than the manager himself. Due to this situation, I submitted a formal complaint to the Director, Arthur Muzzi, outlining what was happening. The Director told me he was not aware of this and that he would speak with the manager. In the same complaint, I also reported another irregular practice that I had witnessed: the manager João Nogueira was selling phone cases but registering these sales in the system as “repairs”, thereby claiming the maintenance bonus for himself. I believed this practice to be improper and potentially unlawful, and I felt it was my duty to report it. Two days after making this complaint and raising these concerns, I was handed my notice of dismissal. This occurred without any investigation, without any verbal or written warning, and without any disciplinary hearing. Up to the date of my dismissal, I had never received any warning, notice, or disciplinary process regarding my performance. The dismissal happened immediately after I reported irregularities and complained about my working conditions, which I strongly believe was an act of retaliation. I therefore submit this complaint to the WRC on the grounds of unfair dismissal, as I was terminated without fair procedure, without adherence to disciplinary policies, and in breach of my employment rights. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by its Director. The Respondent provided a comprehensive written submission, which was received by the WRC on 6 July 2026. The Respondent rejects the assertion that there was any unfairness in the manner in which the Complainant was made redundant. Where I considered it necessary, I made my own inquiries to gain a better understanding of the facts of the case and to fulfil my statutory duties. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant, which was given on affirmation. The Respondent's witness, Mr Arthur Martins, who acts as a Director operating from Head Office, gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent and provided context regarding the Employer's decision-making process. The Complainant was employed in the Respondent's retail shop in Dún Laoghaire. The retail unit sells phones, laptops and associated equipment, together with providing repair and update services. The Respondent operates six sister shops, all of which are managed through a Head Office based in the St Stephen's Green Shopping Centre. I formed the impression that very few individuals operate from Head Office, as Mr Martins appeared to be its sole day-to-day representative. Mr Martins is responsible for the operational management of the shops and reports to two Directors. Separately, an accountant, Mr Mark Chen, prepares the company's accounts. Mr Chen was not available to give evidence. However, some of the financial figures prepared by him were opened to me during the course of Mr Martins' evidence. The Complainant commenced employment on the basis of a 40-hour working week and was ultimately earning the statutory minimum wage rate of €13.50 per hour. He worked for the Respondent for over one year without issue. In or around late August 2025, the Complainant wrote to Mr Martins at Head Office. These communications took the form of WhatsApp messages. In those messages, the Complainant raised concerns regarding his line manager in the shop, Mr J. The Complainant alleged that Mr J was frequently late for work and/or left work early, thereby leaving the Complainant to carry a disproportionate share of the workload. The Complainant also alleged that Mr J was recording repair jobs that he had not in fact carried out. According to the Complainant, such repairs attracted a bonus payment and therefore had the potential to result in an improper financial benefit. This information had the hallmark of a Protected Disclosure It is clear that the Complainant was taking a significant personal risk in making allegations against his immediate manager. In any properly managed organisation, such concerns would ordinarily trigger an appropriate investigation or, at the very least, a process whereby the employee's concerns could be formally examined. Mr Martins confirmed that the company has neither a Human Resources department nor access to an external HR provider. I found this somewhat surprising given that the business employs approximately 25 staff members across six retail outlets and, on the evidence before me, appears to generate annual turnover that may amount to several million euro. Three days after this communication between the Complainant and Mr. Martins, the Complainant was notified that he was being let go in circumstances where the company was purportedly experiencing a downturn. The letter provided to the Complainant on the 28th of August 2025 read as follows: Denes Jorge Sales Assistant Subject: Termination of Employment – Denes Jorge Termination Date: 28/08/2025 Dear Denes Jorge, I hope this letter finds you well. We regret to inform you that, due to recent circumstances, we have made the difficult decision to terminate the employment of Denes Jorge as a Sales Assistant at IT STAR. This termination will be effective as of 28/08/2025. Your notice period is one week with your last working day being 05/09/2025. The decision to terminate Denes Jorge 's employment is based on the following reasons: 1. Economic Crises and Service Cutbacks: The ongoing economic crisis has prompted us to reevaluate our service offerings. As part of our cost-cutting measures, we have decided to reduce labour costs in our shop to minimize the impact on the business. 2. Business Restructuring: Due to a decline in shop performance, the company is undergoing operational changes. As part of this, new staffing arrangements will be implemented to support future needs. We understand that these circumstances may be challenging, but we must prioritize the long term viability of the company and its employees during this difficult period. We will provide Denis with his regular salary based on his hours and any accrued benefits up to the termination date. Additionally, we will assist him in retrieving personal belongings and provide necessary documentation related to his employment termination. Please be aware that this decision was not made lightly, and we genuinely appreciate the contributions Denis made during his tenure at IT STAR. We wish him the best in his future endeavours. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, The Respondent's witness gave evidence that it would be wrong to link the termination of the Complainant's employment with the issues raised three days earlier concerning the behaviour of the Complainant's line manager. The witness appeared to be advancing the argument that the Complainant knew, or ought to have known, that profits in the Dun Laoghaire shop had declined significantly during the year in which he worked there. The Complainant, however, stated that he could have had no knowledge of this, as it was his first year in the role and he had no previous period against which to compare the shop's performance. The Respondent's witness suggested that the Line Manager, Mr J, had warned the Complainant at some stage earlier in August 2025 that the shop was experiencing difficulties. The Complainant denies that this conversation ever took place. The Complainant gave clear evidence that he was shocked when his employment was terminated and felt strongly that the decision was linked to the concerns he had raised regarding his line manager. Beyond this, I accept that there must be some concern regarding the manner in which this employee was reportedly made redundant without prior warning. This is contrary to the established protections and assurances generally afforded to employees who are faced with the prospect of redundancy. Having carefully considered all of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated that the Complainant's dismissal was affected in accordance with a fair redundancy process. While I accept that the Respondent may have been experiencing trading difficulties, the evidence does not establish that the Complainant was adequately informed of those difficulties, was consulted regarding the potential redundancy, or afforded any opportunity to engage with the process before the decision to terminate his employment was made. I find the Complainant's evidence concerning the abrupt nature of his dismissal to be credible and compelling. The absence of meaningful consultation, advance warning, or consideration of alternatives to dismissal falls significantly short of the standard of procedural fairness expected in redundancy situations. In all the circumstances, I find that the Respondent has failed to establish that the dismissal was fair and reasonable. I therefore find in favour of the Complainant. Having considered the evidence concerning the Complainant's efforts to mitigate his losses, together with his subsequent employment circumstances, I consider it just and equitable to award compensation in respect of the financial loss flowing from the dismissal. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00074933-001 - The Complainant herein was Unfairly Dismissed in that the process for making him Redundant was non—transparent and potentially spurious. I award the Complainant 20 weeks loss of earnings in a compensatory lump sum of €10,800.00.
|
Dated: 31-08-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|