Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anthony Padden

Kaefer Limited

Representatives

Patrick J Durcan & Co. solicitors

 Mason Hayes and Curran 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-00063002-001

23/04/2024

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

CA-00063002-002

23/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

CA-00063002-004

23/04/2024

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in July 2020. 

He was informed in October 2023 of a risk of redundancy, and the respondent ultimately terminated the complainant’s employment on grounds of redundancy on 4 December 2023.

A claim of unfair dismissal and complaints of not having received minimum notice of termination and a written statement of terms of employment were referred to the Commission on 23 April 2024.

The complainant’s gross weekly pay of €880.80 in employment with the respondent was agreed.  

By letter dated 27 October 2023, the respondent advised the complainant his role was at risk of redundancy due to a downturn in work.  The respondent proposed reducing the number of painters on site from 4 to 2.  The complainant understood that selection for redundancy would be determined by reference to a redundancy matrix selection process. 

The matrix scoring was discussed at a meeting on 7 November 2023. 

Following representations from the complainant, his initial scoring of 34/40 was amended to 38/40. The respondent refused to accept the complainant’s representations about the wrongful inclusion of statutory sick leave in the matrix scoring. 

On 8 November 2023, the respondent sent the complainant details of the redundancy package on offer.

A final meeting took place on 9 November 2023, after which the complainant received an email advising that the respondent was no longer using the redundancy selection matrix but was going to use ‘last in first out’ (“LIFO”) instead. 

At a meeting on 10 November 2023, the complainant was informed he was being made redundant; no figures were discussed and no reason given for the change in selection procedure.

An email of 10 November 2023 confirmed the complainant’s role as redundant and set out a less favourable financial package for redundancy. 

The complainant appealed the decision to make him redundant, which appeal was unsuccessful.

The respondent’s selection process was fundamentally unsound.  It was not objective and impersonal, nor was it reasonable having regard to section 12 of the Sick Leave Act 2022 and the respondent’s inclusion of statutory sick leave in the scoring of the selection criteria.  The respondent’s selection criteria were formulated in line with a pre-determined decision to make the complainant redundant.  There was no discussion with the complainant on alternatives to redundancy. After the termination of the complainant’s employment, operatives on site were retrained as painters, calling into question the bona fides of the complainant’s redundancy.

Both the reason for termination and the process used by the respondent were challenged by the complainant.

Summary of complainant’s evidence

LIFO was first mentioned in the original meeting between Ms Kemski and the four painters when the question was asked about what would happen if there was a tie-break on the selection matrix; Ms Kemski said LIFO would be used.  

The complainant was one of the last 2 painters employed so he would never have asked for LIFO to be used because it would cost him his job.   The first time the complainant saw the minutes of the 7 November 2023 meeting in which the complainant is recorded as saying “I would be happy if it went on LIFO” was when they were included with the submission on behalf of the respondent to the WRC.  The statement attributed to the complainant is definitely incorrect.

The complainant thought he was safe as a joint top scorer on the selection matrix when told that the person who scored 40/40 had opted to take voluntary redundancy.  He was shocked when the selection method changed.

After termination of employment, a previous employer offered the complainant a job for a month working 4 days per week.  The complainant ended up working with that employer for 10 weeks and earned €510-28 gross per week.  This work was from 5 January to late March 2024.

The complainant provided detail of places he then applied for work and outlined personal commitments.

Cross-examination

Before working with the respondent, the complainant did an apprenticeship in carpentry, worked locally for 5/6 years before working in various locations in Ireland and abroad as a carpenter, pipelayer, painter and general operative.  He had never been without work.

Regarding his employment with the respondent, the complainant had been happy to get a job with a local employer with a good reputation.  On joining the respondent, he worked initially as a general operative and then as a painter.

For as long as the complainant worked with the respondent, there had been 4 painters employed at the North Mayo site, irrespective of the weather.

The complainant could recall Ms Kemski talking about the selection criteria for redundancy in or around the time of the townhall meeting and that it would be a matrix system.

The witness was asked about looking at the minutes of the 7 November 2023 consultation meeting in retrospection and taking issue with just one sentence attributed to him.  The complainant accepted that he was told that he could apply for a role in the UK and that this aspect of his appeal submission was incorrect.  

The complainant agreed that his scoring on the matrix criteria was amended during the consultation process following concerns raised by the complainant.   The complainant disagreed that he had stated during the consultation process that he would be happy for LIFO to be used.

The complainant acknowledged that he had not questioned the underlying rationale for the redundancy in his appeal submission, but he had been questioning his selection for redundancy from day 1.  The complainant did not accept a downturn in work from October 2023 to March/April 2024.

In relation to financial loss, the complainant did not register with construction agencies as he did not want to go down a similar route ever again.  The complainant applied for 10/12 jobs from March/April 2024 up until July/August 2024.  The complainant went to construction sites looking for work.   He engaged with a back-to-work social enterprise scheme in July 2024 and took the decision to set up his own business.  The complainant committed to self-employment working in home maintenance in or around this time.  He registered a business name in January/February 2024 because he was trying to get work and wanted something to fall back on; it was not his intention to become self-employed in January 2024 but he was in temporary employment at the time and wanted to have a plan.  The business commenced in August 2024.  When asked about social media posts in March and April 2024 under the business name, the complainant said it was another way of trying to get work as he had no job at the time.  The photos could have been of work the complainant did five plus years ago that he was using as advertisement.  The complainant confirmed a figure for monies earned from work as a builder/carpenter to the end of December 2024.  There was no documentary evidence of the complainant trying to get work from August 2024 to December 2024.   The complainant confirmed earnings from trade under the business name in 2025.  

In re-examination, the complainant stated that he had an opportunity in the consultation process to apply for a role in the UK, it was not an offer of a job in the UK.  The complainant made more than one application to local employers for work.  The complainant did not have documentary evidence of all the work he had looked for.  All of the complainant’s work in 2025 was for the business he set up.

The respondent fully disputed the claims against it. 

The respondent held the refrigeration and maintenance contract for a site operated by a third party in North Mayo.  In or around October 2023, the respondent informed the complainant along with three other employees working as painters at the site that it was necessary to make 2 of the 4 painting positions at the site redundant as the respondent considered there would be insufficient work for all staff over the following months.   A letter dated 27 October 2023 confirmed to the complainant that he was within the category of employees considered at risk of redundancy.

The respondent’s redundancy process involved a townhall meeting during which the painters were expressly informed of the need for redundancies, individual consultation meetings where a redundancy selection matrix was discussed and an appeals process. 

A fair and impartial selection process resulted in the complainant’s role being selected for redundancy and the complainant’s employment terminated on 4 December 2023 by reason of the genuine redundancy of his role. 

Summary of Fiona Kemski’s evidence

Ms Kemski was Operations Manager with the respondent at the material time and participated in some of the redundancy process.  She was involved in the initial scoring and attended the first consultation meeting with the complainant.  She did not attend subsequent consultation meetings and did not take the decision to make the complainant’s role redundant.

The respondent is an industrial services company with a multi-skilled team on site in North Mayo to deliver on a maintenance and refrigeration contract with a third-party.  The complainant was one of four painters undertaking industrial painting on site.

At a townhall meeting, the witness informed personnel why redundancies were necessary; work scopes released by the client meant a reduction in work for painters over the winter period.  The respondent was aware that scopes of work would be reduced coming into winter and that the team would need to be reduced.   The number of painters was to reduce from 4 to 2.  The witness had spoken to the four painters privately prior to the townhall meeting.  At the townhall, the witness addressed the entire team about the reduction in work activity.  A letter dated 27 October 2023 issued following the townhall advising of restructuring at the site.  The witness was supported in relation to the meeting and provided with a matrix for redundancy selection by a HR advisor from the respondent’s UK office.  The witness completed the matrix in respect of the complainant.  In relation to the criteria of absence record, the witness scored the complainant 8/10 by reference to sick leave taken by the complainant.  For ‘competency and site-specific skills’, the witness scored the complainant 6/10 as the complainant was not a permit holder and it is standard that the respondent’s operatives are permit holders.  In a previous performance review meeting, the complainant had advised he would not do training unless there was a pay increase.  The complainant’s total score on application of the matrix was 34/40.  Another painter also scored 34/40 and the two other painters scored 38 and 40.

The first consultation meeting with the complainant was held on 7 November 2023.   The witness brought the complainant through the scores at the meeting.  The complainant rejected / disputed aspects of the matrix and challenged the process.  The meeting was adjourned because the complainant became argumentative.  The complainant was advised that aspects disputed by him would be reviewed by the respondent.  The complainant refused to sign off on the matrix scoring. The precise issues on the complainant’s part were in relation to the sickness absence scoring and a reference to the complainant having refused training.    The complainant was very unhappy with the witness having used the latter. The witness subsequently reviewed the appraisal forms and discovered that the complainant had not refused training in the previous 12-month period.  The issue raised by the complainant was therefore accepted and the complainant’s scoring under that criterion was amended, bringing the complainant’s total score to 38. 

The witness had no other involvement in the redundancy process.

Asked about employees on the refrigeration project retraining as painters in March 2024, the witness advised that the refrigeration project was separate to the witness’ team.  When the refrigeration project ended, painting had recommenced and employees were taken over from the refrigeration project and retrained as painters on the witness’ team.

Cross-examination

The witness did not consider lay-off or short-time work as an alternative to redundancy.  Alternative work on a site in the UK was offered but nobody pursued this.

Asked about what had happened in the winter of 2022/2023, the witness said there was great difficulty in providing work and that it had been a costly exercise for the respondent as there wasn’t the work demand.  A different approach was taken to managing the situation in winter 2023.  The work scope released by the client did not warrant full engagement over the winter period. 

Asked about the complainant being a general operative and other work he could do, for example covering sick leave, the witness response was that sick leave absence was not an issue.   The witness could not recall painters moving to the refrigeration contract/project over the course of its duration.

In terms of the redundancy procedure, the witness followed the procedure set by HR. She understood the procedure to be fair and reasonable.

The witness confirmed and was satisfied with the accuracy of the minutes of the 7 November meeting; she had reviewed the minutes for accuracy after the meeting.  The witness consulted with Mr O’Leary following the 7 November meeting.

The complainant’s matrix score was amended under the competency and skills criterion.  The respondent did not consider it appropriate to amend the absence score.

The witness thought the selection criteria may have been in the slide deck shared at the townhall meeting.

In response to my questions

At the end of the townhall meeting, the witness let everyone else leave and kept the painters on to explain the selection criteria and the timelines.  She also advised that individual consultation meetings would be scheduled the following week.   In relation to completion of the matrix for the complainant, the witness met with HR and engaged with HR on the matrix after the townhall and before the first consultation meeting with the complainant.  The complainant did not see his scoring on the matrix in advance of the first consultation meeting.  The witness brought the complainant through the criteria document at the meeting.    Immediately after the first consultation meeting, the witness reviewing the scoring having regard to the complainant’s submissions.  

The witness did not know if the meeting notes of 7 November 2023 were provided to the complainant after the meeting.

Summary of David O’Leary’s evidence

The witness is Operations Director for the Irish business.   The contract for the North Mayo site is one of the contracts under his remit.  The witness is supported by HR and commercial functions in the UK.

Prior to the redundancy process, the witness was aware of the reduced scope of work under the client contract.  This was not an unusual situation given the respondent’s responsibility to execute a contract in accordance with client budget.

The witness conducted the complainant’s appeal of the decision to make him redundant; he had had no prior involvement in the redundancy process.

Ms Kemski directly reported to the witness and, following the meeting of 7 November 2023, Ms Kemski called the witness as she was upset about the tone and nature of the meeting.  This was the main discussion in the telephone call and the witness committed to Ms Kemski that she would not need to be involved in the process going forward.  There was also general discussion, but the witness could not advise or make any decision at that stage as they had to revert back to HR in the UK.

The appeal meeting on 24 November 2023 was held by remote means with the Head of HR from the UK, the witness and complainant in attendance.  The witness did not recall the complainant disagreeing with the situation of redundancy. 

In conducting the appeal, the witness had the correspondence and minutes of meeting.  He also spoke with the original decision-maker who told him that the change from using the matrix to LIFO for selection was because there seemed to be a collective agreement for LIFO to be used.

The witness rejected the complainant’s grounds of appeal.  The reason for the difference between a letter in the respondent’s booklet and the letter that issued to the complainant, both dated 4 December 2023 and entitled ‘Outcome of Redundancy Appeal Process’, was explained by reference to centralised template resources. The witness edited, approved and signed off on the letter that issued to the complainant.

Cross-examination

The witness discussed with Ms Kemski the need to tighten the budget based on the client’s work scope.  Given the scope, the witness discussed with Ms Kemski employees surplus to requirements.  Ms Kemski would have gone to HR for information on the process involved in reducing headcount. Ms Kemski and the witness made the decision that people had to be made redundant, which decision was informed by the amount of work/scopes coming from the client.   The witness confirmed that as Ms Kemski’s line manager, he was involved in the initial decision that there had be redundancies. HR in the UK then advised on the process.

Regarding the telephone call between the witness and Ms Kemski after the meeting of 7 November 2023, the witness was aware that Ms Kemski was upset about a meeting with the complainant and that the complainant had challenged various matters in the meeting.   The overriding focus of the conversation was that Ms Kemski would come out of the process and for HR to do the rest of the meetings.  The witness agreed that this was a remedial measure he put in place with the intention of supporting Ms Kemski.  There was no discussion between the witness and Ms Kemski on the process specifics or the matrix, and the witness would have advised Ms Kemski to go to HR on the issues raised by the complainant.  

LIFO had been used in other contracts over the years to select employees for redundancy, but it had not been used in the recent past. 

Asked about considering lay-off or short-time, the respondent did not know when the client would get busy again and it could not compel the release of work.  The respondent could not make the decision to carry people until the following March / April.  The witness could not say whether lay-off was considered or not.  

In conducting the appeal process, the witness outlined having access to all documentation that would have been shared.  He would not have been aware that the minutes of the 7 November meeting were not shared with the complainant and could not comment on this.

The witness did not write the letter to the complainant dated 4 December 2023 with the appeal process outcome.  The letter was generated by HR and the witness commented on the letter; a collective decision was taken between the HR department and the witness.  The witness conducted the appeal meeting; the Head of HR was present, and a collaborative decision on the complainant’s appeal was taken.

It did not seem logical to the witness that the complainant would want LIFO to be the selection mechanism when it meant that his role would be selected, whereas his role was safe on the application of the matrix.   The witness understood there was a collective agreement to use LIFO. 

In response to my questions

The witness advised that it was possibly the Head of HR who asked the witness to conduct the appeal.  The decision to move and retrain employees from the refrigeration project as painters was taken locally on site by Ms Kemski.  The witness had the complainant’s written submission when dealing with the appeal.

CA-00063002-001:  Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

At the hearing, the complainant’s representative confirmed that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, contested a genuine redundancy situation and the process that resulted in the termination of the complainant’s employment on 4 December 2023.  It was submitted that a process in which the respondent initially used a fundamentally unsound and unlawful selection matrix, and then changed the selection process to use LIFO when circumstances concerning the ‘at risk’ pool of employees changed and it became clear the complainant would retain his role on the original selection matrix, upended an objective and transparent process and evidenced targeting of the complainant for redundancy.  The legitimacy of a redundancy situation in the last quarter of 2023 was put in issue by reference to the respondent retraining employees on site as painters in March 2024.

The respondent disputed the complainant’s claim and maintained that the complainant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (the “1977 Act”) deems a dismissal to be unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

A dismissal from employment on grounds of redundancy comes within the scope of a fair dismissal as provided for in s.6(4) of the 1977 Act:-

“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) the redundancy of the employee, and …”

Redundancy is defined in section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014, as amended, (the “1967 Act”).

Section 6(7) of the 1977 Act provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:-

“(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 …”

In this case, the respondent bears the burden of proving that the termination of the complainant’s employment resulted wholly or mainly from redundancy and that it was a fair dismissal.

The respondent’s evidence was of a reduced requirement for painters employed at its client’s site based on the work scope released by the client; painting is weather dependent and over the winter months the respondent did not require the full complement of 4 painters employed at the site.  The respondent’s evidence in this regard comes within section 7(2)(c) of the 1967 Act, namely that the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to:-

“the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, …”

However, this is not determinative of the unfair dismissal claim because section 7(2)(c) of the 1967 Act may involve, and indeed did involve in this case, the selection of positions for redundancy and retention of others, and the complainant put in issue the selection of his role for redundancy.  The respondent must therefore demonstrate that the complainant’s role was fairly selected for redundancy.  

At some point prior to a townhall meeting in October 2023, the respondent took the decision to make 2 of 4 painters at the North Mayo site redundant by reference to the work scope released by its client for the winter period.  The respondent determined to use a selection matrix to identify the redundant roles.  It was common case that the painters were informed of use of a selection matrix in or around the time of the townhall meeting.  The complainant was informed of his scoring on the selection matrix criteria at the first consultation meeting of 7 November 2023. 

The complainant’s scoring on the matrix criteria was subsequently amended to a higher score following his representations at the meeting of 7 November, and he was advised of this by email of the same date which attached the amended selection matrix with a total score of 38/40.

On the respondent’s evidence, the finalised matrix scoring was of one painter scoring 40/40, two painters (of which the complainant was one) scoring 38/40 and one painter scoring 34/40.

Ultimately however the selection matrix criteria were not used by the respondent to select roles for redundancy, rather LIFO was used.  It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that it moved to LIFO following representations/submissions on the selection matrix during the consultation process.  The complainant was informed of the respondent’s decision to use LIFO by email on 9 November 2023, after he had been invited to a final meeting on 10 November 2023.  The LIFO selection mechanism resulted in the complainant’s role being made redundant.  A letter dated 10 November 2023 confirms the discussion at a meeting on the same date, at which the complainant was given verbal notice and told his position was being made redundant.   The letter provides information on the complainant’s entitlements and states ‘After concluding the consultation meetings taking onboard your comments and other’s comments, we amended the matrix and used last in first out which is compliant with Irish Law.” 

I accept that the respondent has discretion to set the selection criteria in a redundancy process. However, in this case, I find that the process lacked transparency and fairness. This includes the decision to adopt LIFO as the redundancy selection method. 

There was disagreement between the parties about a suggestion to use LIFO, with the complainant denying that he said he would be happy if it was used. I consider this dispute irrelevant in light of Mr O’Leary’s evidence regarding the reason for switching to LIFO, and the respondent’s own documentary evidence indicating that it would not normally use LIFO for redundancy selection.

Given that the complainant’s role would not have been selected for redundancy on the matrix criteria based on his amended score and the availability of a voluntary redundancy, and that the respondent was aware of this when it chose to move to LIFO, I cannot accept the logic of a submission that the change was made because the complainant objected to the use of absence records. This explanation also conflicts with Mr O’Leary’s evidence of understanding the change to using LIFO having been due to a collective agreement. 

There was no evidence before me of the circumstances and/or business needs justifying a change in the selection method, nor of any collective agreement to apply LIFO in a redundancy selection situation. On the information before me, I cannot find that the complainant’s dismissal was fair, as I am not satisfied that the move to LIFO was undertaken fairly, objectively, and without the purpose of selecting the complainant for redundancy.

I have also had regard to the reasonableness of the respondent’s conduct in relation to the dismissal.  There was no evidence of alternatives to redundancy having been considered, including lay-off or reassignment of the complainant to other work and I note in this regard the respondent’s redundancy procedure and provision for other mitigation opportunities.  I find that there was no information and/or consultation with the complainant on the change in the selection process and further that the respondent had decided to change the selection process before it invited the complainant to the final meeting on 10 November 2023 and before it informed the complainant of the change. I am also not satisfied of a fair, impartial and independent appeals process.  On the information before me, a HR advisor took the initial decision to make the complainant’s role redundant.  Mr O’Leary made his decision on the appeal in collaboration with the Head of HR.  The letter to the complainant dated 4 December 2023 concerning the appeal outcome was prepared by HR and edited by Mr O’Leary.  There are unexplained issues arising from the letter dated 4 December 2023, for example, it advises of Mr O’Leary having given careful consideration to the points raised by the complainant and considered all the information presented with a view to looking at the situation with fresh eyes but then notes that the complainant agreed with LIFO.  Mr O’Leary confirmed that he had access to all relevant communications in dealing with the appeal.  It is clear from the complainant’s email of 9 November 2023 to HR that he is not happy about the use of LIFO.  Accepting the minutes of the meeting of 7 November 2023 as accurate and that the complainant stated he would be happy with LIFO, there were subsequent developments during the information and consultation process that rendered it unreasonable to take a statement of the complainant at the first consultation meeting in isolation and ignore developments thereafter.  It also does not make sense that the complainant would ‘agree’ to LIFO when it would have the effect of his role being made redundant.

In the circumstances, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. 

Although my reasons for finding the dismissal unfair are outlined above, I consider it appropriate to address the complainant’s challenge to the respondent’s use of statutory sick leave when scoring his absence record under the original matrix. In my view, statutory sick leave days constitute a protected period under section 11 of the Sick Leave Act 2022, comparable in nature to maternity leave.  It follows therefore that the inclusion of statutory sick leave when scoring an absence record criterion breaches section 11(1) and may amount to penalisation within the meaning of section 12 of the Sick Leave Act 2022.

The complainant sought redress of compensation for unfair dismissal, and I consider this to be the appropriate form of redress in circumstances where this was addressed by the parties at the hearing and having regard to the complainant’s current status in self-employment.

It was agreed between the parties that any financial loss attributable to the dismissal ceased on 18 September 2025. 

I find that the complainant incurred financial loss attributable to an unfair dismissal.  The complainant’s employment terminated on 4 December 2023, with payment for 2 weeks in lieu of notice and a sum of €4,572.00 by way of a statutory redundancy payment.  In 2024, the complainant earned €5,129.00 gross from a 10-week period of employment from 5 January 2024, was in receipt of social welfare payments and had taxable income of €2,766.00 from self-employment.  On the information before me for 2025, the complainant’s taxable income up to 20 June 2025 was €15,332.00, and the invoiced value of work from 20 June 2025 to 18 September 2025 was €7,800.00, excluding VAT.

In terms of mitigation efforts up to July/August 2024, I consider it reasonable for the complainant to have taken up the opportunity of temporary work on a lower wage and for less hours in January 2024. I also accept the complainant’s evidence of subsequent efforts to find work, which must be considered having regard to the nature of the work sector and the employment opportunities in the geographical area.  However, I am not satisfied that his efforts met the standard set out by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Ltd (UD 858/1999) which requires an out-of-work claimant to spend a reasonable amount of time each weekday actively seeking work.  The complainant’s evidence was that he applied for approximately 10–15 jobs between April and July/August 2024 and whilst specific information was provided of some applications, it did not support 15 applications for work.  

The complainant’s evidence was of deciding to focus on self-employment from in or around July 2024, which is consistent with his application for a back to work enterprise allowance initiated at that time.  I do not accept the respondent’s submission that it cannot be responsible for financial loss after the complainant opted for self‑employment.  Acknowledging the complainant’s evidence of employment opportunities in the area and the efforts he had already made, I consider it reasonable that the complainant pursued the opportunity to become self‑employed.

The information on financial loss in 2025 was unclear and accordingly I am not satisfied to include the period from the beginning of January 2025 in an assessment of financial loss attributable to the complainant’s dismissal. 

I have taken account of the complainant’s gross remuneration in employment with the respondent, the payment in lieu of notice and redundancy lump sum payment received, the complainant’s income from employment in the period January to March 2024, the complainant’s income from self-employment in 2024 and the finding on mitigation efforts, and consider it just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances to award compensation in the sum of €25,000.00 for financial loss attributable to the unfair dismissal. 

 CA-00063002-002:  Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

This complaint was that the respondent had not provided the complainant with the minimum notice of termination of employment in accordance with his contract of employment.    

The contract provided at clause 12.1 for 3 weeks’ notice of termination of employment, and provided at clause 12.5 for payment in lieu of notice.

It was not in dispute that the respondent paid the complainant 2 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. 

The minimum notice to which the complainant was entitled in accordance with section 4(2) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 (the “1973 Act”) was 2 weeks.  The 1973 Act makes provision for payment in lieu of notice.

My jurisdiction is in respect of the 1973 Act, and I do not have scope to adjudicate on contractual notice periods.

On the information before me, I am not satisfied of a contravention of section 4(2) or 5 of the 1973 Act.  I therefore find that the complaint against the respondent is not well founded.

CA-00063002-004:  Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The complaint referred of a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (the “1994 Act”) was that the respondent did not provide an Employee Handbook or the Employer’s disciplinary or grievance procedure, despite the complainant having made numerous requests for same.   I was referred to section 3(1)(m) of the 1994 Act in this regard.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that a failure to provide an employee with copy of a policy did not constitute a breach of the 1994 Act.

The complainant was provided with a contract of employment and signed receipt of same on 28 June 2020.  I note that the said contract referred to the employer’s disciplinary rules and disciplinary procedure and the Employee Handbook.  I further note the contract provisions confirming access to the Employee Handbook.  Having regard to the submission in relation to section 3(1)(m) of the 1994 Act, the contract expressly states that there are no collective agreements directly affecting the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. 

I am not satisfied on the information before me of a contravention of the 1994 Act.  Furthermore, insofar as the complaint relates to the contract that issued to the complainant sometime on or before 28 June 2020, I find that the complaint of a contravention of the 1994 Act has been presented outside of the relevant statutory timeframes under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Accordingly, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00063002-001:  Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complainant was unfairly dismissed and I award compensation in the sum of €25,000.00.

CA-00063002-002:  Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

For the reasons set out above, I find that the respondent did not contravene a relevant section of the 1973 Act.

CA-00063002-004:  Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

For the reasons set out above, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded.

Unfair dismissal – Redundancy – Selection process – Minimum notice – Contractual notice entitlement – Written statement of particulars of terms of employment