Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Yasmine  El-Hamamy

Academic Bridge Limited

Representatives

Andrew Turner Hamilton Turner Solicitors

Eoin Morris BL instructed by Martin Moloney MP Moloney Solicitors

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-00072880-001

27/06/2025

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

CA-00072880-002

27/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00072880-003

27/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00072880-004

27/06/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as an English Language Teacher on 9 April 2018 and was paid EUR 3,153 per month. Her employment was terminated on 8 April 2025 following her refusal to sign a new contract of employment with inferior terms and conditions of employment. She asserts that her dismissal was unfair which the Respondent accepted.

Further to a change of ownership in November 2024, the Respondent wrote to all teachers in its employment, including the Complainant, advising that, following a financial review, salaries were to be reduced.

Notwithstanding certain concessions made by the teaching staff, the Respondent again wrote to nine teachers at the end of January 2025, informing them that they were required to sign new contracts of employment on inferior terms and conditions, failing which their employment would be at risk.

Following a series of meetings between the Respondent and the Complainant’s union in February and March 2025, the Respondent informed its staff, including the Complainant, on 12 March 2025 that revised contracts would issue to 12 employees and would take effect from 8 April 2025. Staff were advised that any employee who did not accept the new contract would have their employment terminated on that date.

The Complainant did not accept the proposed contract and was subsequently notified of her redundancy on 28 March 2025. Her employment came to an end on 8 April 2025.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

As the Respondent conceded that the dismissal was unfair, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

CA-00072880-001:

I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed for the reason set out above.

Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, in relevant part, states that:

(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 the adjudication officer, 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

(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,

(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 financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employee,

(c) the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid,

(d) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister,

(e) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the said section 14,

(f) the extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal.

3) In this section—

“financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1973, or in relation to superannuation;

“remuneration” includes allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.

The Remedy

In deciding on a suitable remedy, I must consider reinstating the Complainant despite the fact that is was only seeking compensation.

In making this decision, I have regard to the findings of the Supreme Court in An Bord Banistiochta, Gaelscoil Moshiolog v The Labour Court, where it was stated that “the remedy of reinstatement is exceptional in nature,involving as it does the imposition of a contractual relationship which is not only personal, but involves a high level of mutual trust and confidence, on an unwilling party…. It is wrong to view reinstatement simply as punishment for wrongdoing on the part of the employer”

Considering the foregoing, I am satisfied, based on the evidence presented to me, that the trust and confidence required for the resumption of an employment relationship no longer exists.  Accordingly, I have decided to make an award of compensation.

Calculation of award

I note firstly that while conceding the dismissal was unfair the Respondent’s representative highlighted that as the Complainant had failed to sufficiently mitigate her loss, any award should reflect this. In considering this assertion, I note that there is conflicting case law around the calculation of an award of compensation with many decisions focusing solely on the efforts of a Complainant to mitigate their loss and appearing to disregard the conduct of the employer in relation to the dismissal.

In my view, a decision to focus solely on the attempts to mitigate loss is at odds with both the legislative provisions and the views of the Adjudication Officer in ADJ 32667, where, in calculating the award of compensation, she stated, inter alia, that: 

“in considering compensation, regard must be had to all of the subsection of Section 7-and the tests are not confined to the efforts of the former employee-or the Complainant in this case. In circumstances where the Respondent is found not to have met the tests set out in subsections (c) and (d) …. and the Complainant made no contribution to the decision to dismiss her under (a) (b) or (f) It would be wholly unjustified to penalise the Complainant solely for a conclusion that she did not make a sufficient effort of mitigate her losses where the balance of unfairness and failure to comply with the terms of Section 7 as a whole lie squarely with the Respondent.” 

In examining section 7(2)(a), I note that the Respondent accepted, as outlined above, that the Respondent acted wholly unreasonably in dismissing the Complainant. In considering section 7(2) (b) and (f), I find that the Complainant made no contribution to the termination of her employment Furthermore, I must have regard to 7(2)(d) and (e) of the Act and note that there was not a scintilla of procedural fairness in relation to the Complainant’s dismissal.

Considering section 7(2)(c), a complainant is under a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their financial loss arising from the dismissal as set out in section. Compensation is not punitive in nature; it is compensatory and must reflect the actual loss suffered, reduced to the extent that such loss could reasonably have been avoided.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the Complainant significantly restricted her efforts to obtain alternative employment. She stated that she confined her job search to positions offering what she described as childcare-friendly hours. While I acknowledge that the Complainant is a single mother and has childcare responsibilities, it is well-established that personal circumstances of this nature do not remove or lessen the obligation to mitigate loss. A complainant is required to take active and reasonable steps to secure suitable alternative employment and cannot limit their job search to roles that replicate the precise working hours or conditions of their previous employment.

The fact that the Complainant’s former position happened to offer hours compatible with her childcare arrangements does not entitle her to restrict her job search solely to roles with similar hours. To do so is a matter of personal preference, not an objective barrier to employment. The law requires that the Complainant make reasonable efforts to re-enter the labour market, including consideration of a broader range of roles and working patterns, and to make appropriate childcare arrangements where necessary and feasible.

On the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the Complainant did not take all reasonable steps to mitigate her loss and note that she only applied for 12 roles in the seven-month period between the departure from the Respondent and the date on when she started in her new role.

When considering her future loss after she began working in her new role on 3 November 2025 and following the date of the hearing, I note that the Complainant provided no evidence of looking for work between 3 November 2025 and the date of the hearing. I also noted her assertion that having just received her childcare qualifications on 11 December 2025 she would be confining her job search to roles in the childcare sector given that such hours were child friendly.

By limiting her availability to a narrow selection of roles and declining to pursue or consider positions outside her preferred working hours and given her stated intention to do so in future, I find that the Complainant materially contributed to the continuation of her financial loss in the period in which she was out of work and will continue to do so in future. I therefore find that any award of compensation must be reduced to reflect this failure to mitigate.

Having regard to all of the foregoing, and having considered the evidence presented to me in line with subsections 7(a), (b), (c) (d) (e) and (f) of the Act, I make an award of €12,000 which I find is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is in addition to the redundancy payment that the Complainant has already received. This is because actual loss, prospective loss, and a redundancy entitlement constitute separate and distinct categories of loss.  Specifically, the calculation of actual and prospective loss is based on the loss incurred from the day of the dismissal. On the other hand, the redundancy lump sum entitlement, earned from accrued service, begins on the day an employee commences their employment and ends on the day that the employment is terminated. It, therefore, falls under a distinct category of loss and cannot be offset against the compensation award related to the dismissal.

CA-00072880-002:

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00072880-003:

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00072880-004:

This complaint was withdrawn.