Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rosanna  Peyton Mealy

Cuttriss Trading Limited t/a JC Products (on consent)  

Representatives

Trish Wyse HR Consultant

Aoife Walsh Tom Smyth & Associates

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-00064644-001

08/07/2024

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

CA-00064644-002

08/07/2024

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

CA-00064644-003 WITHDRAWN

08/07/2024

The Respondent is a Cork-based business operating in the hospitality and catering supply sector, employing approximately ten staff.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 April 2022 as an office administrator. She worked on a part-time basis of approximately 20 hours per week and earned a gross monthly salary of €1,300; net €1198.

The Complainant contends that her employment terminated on 29 January 2024 in circumstances amounting to an unfair dismissal. She maintains that she did not resign and that her employment was terminated without fair procedures or justification. The Respondent disputes and contends that the Complainant resigned. In addition, the Complainant submits that her fundamental working hours were altered without written notification, contrary to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Respondent rejects this claim, maintaining that no reduction or alteration to the Complainant’s contractual hours occurred, and contends that she was, in fact, seeking additional hours and that her working hours increased over time.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence. She confirmed that she was employed by the Respondent as an office administrator from 1 April 2022 until 29 January 2024. She stated that she worked approximately 20 hours per week and that there had been no issues regarding her performance during her employment.

Dismissal:

The Complainant gave detailed evidence regarding the events which she states led to the termination of her employment. She described an incident in January 2024 where she was seated at her desk performing her duties when the Managing Director entered the office and, in her words, “just opened the door and straight away verbally started just shouting at me” in relation to a cup of soup on her desk. She stated that she apologised immediately and indicated that it would not happen again, but that she was taken aback by the tone and manner in which she was addressed.

She stated that this incident caused her significant upset and that she sought to address the matter with management. A meeting took place on 29 January 2024. The Complainant stated that the meeting was tense and unresolved. She told the hearing that she was asked whether she could “move on” from the incident and that her response — “I don’t know if I can” — reflected her upset at the treatment she had received rather than any intention to leave her employment. She described it as an emotional response.

The Complainant stated that following this meeting, she returned to her desk and contacted Mr A, a self-employed bookkeeper with the Respondent. She stated that Mr A attended shortly thereafter and appeared visibly unsettled. She gave evidence that he said, “it’s not good Rosanna” and, when she asked, “am I gone, am I fired?” he nodded in the affirmative.

She further stated that Mr. A offered to speak again with management on her behalf. Upon his return, he told her “I’m very sorry Rosanna” and confirmed that her employment had ended with immediate effect. She stated that she was not afforded any disciplinary process, notice, or written confirmation of dismissal despite requesting same.

The Complainant stated that she left the workplace that day after clearing her desk and that she attended her GP on 29 January 2024 due to distress arising from the events. She gave evidence that she was medically certified as unfit for work for a period thereafter.

She maintained throughout her evidence that she did not resign her position at any stage and that she understood her employment to have been terminated by the Respondent.

Reduction of Hours:

The Complainant gave evidence regarding a meeting which took place in or around January 2023, following her return to work after a period of bereavement leave. She stated that she was asked to attend a meeting with Ms. Fiona Cuttriss and Mr. A, during which her contract and working arrangements were discussed.

The Complainant told the hearing that, at this meeting, she was informed that certain aspects of her working arrangements would change. In particular, she stated that she was advised that she would no longer be required to clock in and out, and that her working hours would be reduced from her contractual 20 hours per week.

The Complainant gave evidence that she was taken by surprise by this development and that the proposed reduction in hours was communicated to her as an immediate change. She stated that she did not receive any written notification of this change, nor was she given advance notice as provided for in her contract of employment. She referred to a contractual provision which she understood required 28 days’ notice of any such change.

Evidence Regarding Mitigation of Loss

The Complainant gave evidence that she was unfit for work from 29 January 2024 until mid-March 2024 due to work-related stress. During this period, she stated that she was not in a position to seek or accept alternative employment.

She stated that from mid-March 2024 onwards, she began actively seeking alternative employment. She registered for jobseeker’s payments and applied for roles through recruitment agencies and other channels.

The Complainant gave evidence that she secured a temporary administrative role commencing on or about 26 March 2024. She stated that this role continued until the end of May 2024. She described the position as part-time, working 18 to 20 hours per week.

In terms of remuneration, the Complainant stated that the rate of pay in this temporary role was higher than that which she had received with the Respondent. She accepted in her evidence that, during this period of employment, she did not suffer a financial loss relative to her previous position.

She gave evidence that she resumed her search for employment thereafter. She further stated that she continued to apply for positions following the end of that role and remained in receipt of jobseeker’s payments. She indicated that her applications were primarily for administrative roles, consistent with her experience and qualifications.

At the time of the hearing, the Complainant indicated that she was in permanent employment that she had secured in May 2025, for which there was no financial loss to her.

Cross-Examination of the Complainant

Under questioning, the Complainant reiterated her position that the termination arose in circumstances which, in her view, amounted to a dismissal. She accepted that there was no explicit communication from the Respondent confirming that her employment was terminated. In particular, she acknowledged that she did not receive a letter of dismissal, nor was she formally informed—either verbally or in writing—that her role had been brought to an end.

Ms Walsh for the Respondent directed the Complainant to contemporaneous communications, including text messages and emails exchanged in the period immediately prior to her departure. It was put to her that these communications did not support her assertion of a dismissal but instead suggested a degree of ambiguity, if not disengagement, on her own part. The Complainant accepted that she did not, at any point, seek written clarification from the Respondent as to her employment status following these exchanges.

Further, the Complainant was questioned on her failure to invoke any internal grievance procedure prior to the termination of her employment. She accepted that no formal grievance was raised, and that she did not afford the Respondent an opportunity to address her concerns before she ceased attending work. When it was put to her that a reasonable employee, faced with uncertainty as to their employment status, would ordinarily seek clarification or pursue internal mechanisms, she maintained that she believed the situation to be irretrievable, but accepted that this belief was not expressly communicated to the Respondent.

The Complainant was also challenged on the issue of whether she had, in effect, withdrawn from her position. It was put to her that her cessation of attendance at the workplace, coupled with the absence of any subsequent engagement with the Respondent, was more consistent with a voluntary departure than a dismissal. While she rejected the characterisation that she had resigned, she accepted that she did not return to work after the relevant date and that no medical certification or other explanation was furnished to the Respondent to account for her absence at that time.

Regarding mitigation of loss, the Complainant was questioned extensively regarding her mitigation of loss. I sought clarification on the precise details of her post-employment work, including the exact dates of commencement and cessation, hours worked, and rate of pay. The Complainant accepted that she did not have all documentary records available at the hearing and that most of her evidence was based on recollection.

It was put to the Complainant by Ms Walsh that her mitigation efforts were focused primarily on administrative roles and that she had not demonstrated that she sought a sufficiently broad range of employment. The Complainant responded that she had applied for administrative roles but indicated that some roles within that category were not suitable due to qualification requirements.

It was further put to the Complainant that, given her evidence that she had earned a higher rate of pay during her temporary employment, her financial loss may have been limited during that period. The Complainant accepted that there was no loss during that specific period but maintained that she had suffered an overall loss due to the termination of her employment and the lack of sustained alternative work thereafter.

Evidence of Ms. Christine Deasy, Work Colleague.

The witness gave sworn evidence on behalf of the Complainant. She confirmed that she had been employed by the Respondent as an office administrator for a period of approximately two years, spanning from 2022 to 2024.

The witness gave evidence in relation to the events following the meeting of 29 January 2024. She was not present at the meeting itself but encountered the Complainant shortly afterwards in the car park area, where the Complainant was in the company of Mr. A. The witness stated that she approached the Complainant and asked what had happened. She gave evidence that the Complainant informed her that she had been dismissed. The witness described the Complainant as upset and in a state of shock at that time. The witness recalled advising the Complainant to obtain written confirmation of what had occurred, stating in substance that she should “make sure to get that in writing.” She confirmed that this conversation took place in the presence of Mr A and that she was present when Mr A returned and confirm to the Complainant that she would have the details of her dismissal in writing.

Summary of the Complainant’s Argument:

CA-00064644-001 Unfair Dismissal.

The Complainant’s case, as advanced in her written submission and in the opening and closing statements made on her behalf at hearing, is that she was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (“the 1977 Act”) and that the Respondent failed to apply either substantive justification or fair procedures in bringing her employment to an end.

It is submitted that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 1 April 2022 to 29 January 2024 as an office administrator and that she had a good work record with no prior disciplinary or performance concerns. The Complainant contends that the events leading to the termination of her employment arose from a minor workplace issue which escalated unnecessarily due to the conduct of the Managing Director.

The Complainant’s representative submitted that the Complainant attempted to address the matter informally and in a constructive manner. However, it is argued that rather than resolving the issue, the Respondent escalated the situation and terminated her employment without warning, without investigation, and without invoking any disciplinary procedure.

A central element of the Complainant’s case is that she did not resign her employment. It is contended that, following a meeting on 29 January 2024, she was informed by Mr A that her employment had been terminated with immediate effect. The Complainant maintains that this amounted to a dismissal in fact and in law, irrespective of how the Respondent seeks to characterise the events.

It is further submitted that the Respondent has sought to retrospectively interpret the Complainant’s statement during that meeting, in particular her remark that she did not know if she could “move on,” as constituting a resignation. The Complainant rejects this interpretation, contending that the statement was an expression of distress arising from the manner in which she had been treated, rather than any indication of an intention to terminate her employment.

The Complainant contends that there was a complete failure on the part of the Respondent to comply with fair procedures. She maintains that no investigation was conducted, no disciplinary process was initiated, she was not given an opportunity to respond to any allegation nor was she was not afforded representation. Furthermore, she was provided with neither notice nor written confirmation of the termination of her employment.

Terms of Employment: CA-00064644-002

In addition to her unfair dismissal claim, the Complainant raises complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. She asserts that her terms and conditions of employment, including her working hours, were altered without written notification and in breach of statutory requirements.

Evidence of Mr. Jim Cuttriss

The witness, a Director of the Respondent company, gave sworn evidence. He accepted that he was directly involved in the events which gave rise to the complaint and, in particular, the interaction with the Complainant in January 2024.

In his evidence, the witness accepted that his conduct during the workplace incident, when the Complainant was drinking soup at her desk, was not appropriate. He stated candidly that he had been frustrated and that this had affected his manner of communication. He acknowledged that he raised his voice when addressing the Complainant, stating, “I did raise my voice” and further accepted that he was “probably more… vocal” than was appropriate in the circumstances.

The witness described the office as small and indicated that his manner may have appeared more forceful as a result. He accepted that, upon entering the office, he addressed the Complainant in a direct and raised tone in relation to her having a cup of soup at her desk, stating that he said words to the effect of “seriously, you’re drinking soup… come on.”

When questioned as to whether such behaviour was appropriate for a director, the witness accepted that it was not, stating, “No, it’s not,” although he sought to explain that in certain situations frustration could lead to raised voices and that this reflected his personality. The witness stated that he apologised following the incident and that he attempted to resolve matters with the Complainant. He described seeking to “move on from this” and indicated that he wanted to maintain a positive working relationship.

In relation to the meeting on 29 January 2024, the witness’s evidence was that the purpose of the meeting was to resolve the issue arising from the earlier incident. He stated that he apologised for raising his voice and that he asked the Complainant whether she could move forward and continue in her role. The witness gave evidence that the Complainant indicated that she could not move on from the incident. He stated that she “said she couldn’t move on” and that, in his understanding, this meant that she was not prepared to continue working in the business.

He denied that any dismissal took place. The witness maintained that the Respondent made no decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment and that he did not inform her that she was dismissed. Rather, he stated that, arising from her position that she could not move forward, “we just had to move on,” which he characterised as the end of the employment relationship.

Cross-Examination of the Witness

In cross-examination, the witness was questioned regarding the appropriateness of his conduct and the manner in which he addressed the Complainant. He accepted that raising his voice and adopting an animated manner was not appropriate behaviour for a director, although he maintained that it arose from frustration and was not intended to be aggressive.

The witness was also questioned regarding the absence of any formal disciplinary process. It was put to him that, if the Complainant’s conduct in relation to eating at her desk was considered a disciplinary issue, she ought to have been afforded the benefit of fair procedures, including a formal meeting, representation, and an opportunity to respond. The witness maintained that the matter was not treated as a disciplinary process but rather as an issue to be resolved informally.

In relation to the meeting of 29 January 2024, it was put to the witness that the Complainant’s statement that she did not know if she could “move on” did not constitute a resignation. The witness maintained his position that this statement indicated that she could not continue working in the business and that, in those circumstances, the employment relationship ended. The witness accepted that Mr A was an intermediary between himself and the Complainant on 29 January.

The witness was further questioned on the absence of any written confirmation of either dismissal or resignation. It was put to him that no documentation existed to support the Respondent’s position that the Complainant had resigned. The witness accepted that no formal written record of resignation was obtained but maintained that the circumstances clearly indicated that the Complainant did not wish to continue in her role. He said he would not describe it as a resignation either. He said, “she left.”

Evidence of Ms. Fiona Cuttriss, Company Director.

The witness, a Director of the Respondent company, gave sworn evidence. She outlined her role within the business and confirmed that she participated in the events surrounding both the workplace incident and the subsequent meeting on 29 January 2024.

In her evidence, the witness described the office environment and stated that there was a general expectation that employees would not consume food at their desks, particularly in the front office area where customers might attend. She rejected the suggestion that the Complainant had been singled out and maintained that the instruction regarding food in the office was reasonable and applied within the workplace.

The witness gave evidence regarding the meeting on 29 January 2024. She stated that she was not initially present at the outset of the discussion but joined the meeting when she became aware of it. She recalled that the Complainant raised concerns regarding the earlier incident and that her fellow Director, Mr Jim Cutriss, addressed those concerns.

The witness stated that the Managing Director apologised for raising his voice and attempted to resolve the matter. She told the hearing that the Complainant was asked whether she could move forward from the incident and continue in her role. According to the witness, the Complainant indicated that she could not move on, and she stated that this position was reiterated more than once.

The witness’s evidence was that the meeting concluded on the basis that the Complainant could not continue in her employment. She denied that any dismissal took place and maintained that the Respondent did not terminate the Complainant’s employment.

In her account, the witness also addressed the Complainant’s conduct in relation to the instruction about food in the office. She stated that she had previously advised the Complainant not to have soup at her desk and that, when this instruction was not followed, it was perceived as a disregard of a clear workplace rule. She stated, in substance, that the situation arose because the Complainant had been “told not to have soup in the office” and had nevertheless done so.

In cross-examination, the witness was questioned regarding the consistency and application of the rule relating to eating in the office. It was put to her those other employees, including management, had been observed consuming food in the office and that the Complainant may have been treated differently. The witness rejected any suggestion that the Complainant was targeted and maintained that the rule was appropriate in the context of the business.

The witness was further questioned about the events of the meeting on 29 January 2024 and, in particular, the interpretation of the Complainant’s statement that she did not know if she could “move on”. It was put to the witness that this statement did not amount to a resignation. The witness maintained that the Complainant’s position was clear and that she had indicated that she could not continue working following the incident.

The absence of any formal process was also put to the witness. She was asked whether any disciplinary procedure had been initiated or whether the Complainant had been afforded an opportunity to respond in a structured manner. The witness maintained that the matter was dealt with informally and that the intention of the meeting was to resolve the issue rather than to initiate disciplinary action.

The witness was also questioned regarding the lack of any written confirmation of the termination of employment. It was put to her that no documentation existed confirming either a dismissal or a resignation. The witness accepted that no written or verbal resignation in the understood sense, including a resignation as described in the Respondent’s procedures, had been received but maintained that the circumstances of the meeting and the Complainant’s responses indicated that she was not willing to continue in her role.

Summary of the Respondent’s Argument

The Respondent’s case, as advanced in its written submissions and in the opening and closing statements made on its behalf at hearing, is that the Complainant was not dismissed within the meaning of the 1977 Act and that, accordingly, the claim must fail at the threshold stage.

It is submitted that the employment relationship ended as a result of the Complainant’s own position during a meeting on 29 January 2024, at which she was asked whether she could move forward following a workplace disagreement. The Respondent contends that the Complainant clearly indicated that she could not continue, repeating that she could not “move on,” and that this amounted to a repudiation of the employment relationship. The Respondent denies that any dismissal decision was made or communicated and rejects the assertion that Mr A conveyed a dismissal on its behalf.

The Respondent places emphasis on the statutory definition of dismissal under section 1 of the 1977 Act and submits that the burden rests on the Complainant to establish that a dismissal occurred in fact. Reliance is placed on section 6(6) of the 1977 Act, which provides that the burden of proof shifts to the employer only once a dismissal has been established. The Respondent submits that this threshold has not been met and that the claim cannot proceed in the absence of proof of dismissal.

In addressing the events of January 2024, the Respondent accepts that there was a disagreement in the workplace and that the Managing Director may have raised his voice. However, it is submitted that this was an isolated incident arising from frustration and that an apology was offered. The Respondent contends that the purpose of the meeting on 29 January 2024 was to resolve matters informally and to allow both parties to move forward. It is argued that the Complainant’s refusal to do so effectively brought the employment relationship to an end.

The Respondent further rejects any suggestion that it failed to apply fair procedures, maintaining that no disciplinary process arose as there was no dismissal. It is submitted that the circumstances did not give rise to a disciplinary issue requiring formal process and that the matter was dealt with on an informal basis in an effort to resolve the dispute.

The Respondent raises the issue of mitigation of loss. It submits that the Complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to secure alternative employment and relies on authority to support the proposition that a claimant must actively and continuously seek work. In particular, reliance is placed on Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Ltd (UD858/1999), where it was held that an individual must spend a reasonable amount of time each weekday seeking alternative employment, and on Philip Smyth v Mark Leddy (UDD1974), as cited in Claire Butterly v Care Choice Ltd (ADJ-00030096), where the Labour Court emphasised that a claimant must spend a significant portion of each normal working day actively pursuing employment and must provide evidence of such efforts. In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the Complainant has failed to establish that she was dismissed, that no breach of statutory obligation has been made out, and that, in any event, any potential award should be reduced or eliminated due to a failure to adequately mitigate loss.

In relation to the claims under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Respondent denies that any change was made to the Complainant’s contractual hours. It is submitted that, on the contrary, the Complainant frequently sought additional hours and that her working hours increased over time. The Respondent relies on payroll records to assert that she was, on average, working and being paid for more than her contractual hours.

CA-00064644-001: Unfair Dismissal.

I must first consider whether there was a dismissal (“the fact of dismissal”) before I conclude whether there was an unfair dismissal.

Having considered the written submissions and the sworn evidence of the Complainant, the witness, and the two directors, I am satisfied that the Respondent has incorrectly characterised the termination of the employment relationship as a resignation when, on the evidence, no such resignation occurred. A resignation, to be effective, must be clear, voluntary, and unequivocal. Where ambiguity arises, it is always incumbent upon an employer to take reasonable steps to clarify the employee’s intention before acting upon it. An employer cannot reasonably rely on an expression of distress or emotional difficulty as constituting a resignation, particularly in the absence of any formal or written confirmation.

In the present case, I find in fact that there were no words or actions on the part of the Complainant which could reasonably be construed as a resignation. Both directors accepted in evidence that the Complainant did not resign, either verbally or in writing, and that no resignation was received in accordance with the Respondent’s own procedures. The absence of any written resignation is particularly significant in circumstances where the Respondent envisaged such a process.

The Respondent instead relies on the Complainant’s statement at the meeting of 29 January 2024 that she did not know if she could “move on”. I find that reliance to be misplaced. I accept the Complainant’s evidence that this statement reflected her emotional reaction to the manner in which she had been treated and her difficulty in coming to terms with that treatment. It did not amount to an intention to terminate her employment. It was, at most, an expression of distress and uncertainty.

This conclusion is supported by the Complainant’s conduct immediately after the meeting. She contacted Mr A, sought that he speak again with management on her behalf, and requested written confirmation of what she had been told. Mr Cuttriss accepted that Mr A was the intermediary for conveying messages between both parties on the day. The ‘back and forth’ nature of the exchanges are not the actions of an employee who has resigned; they are consistent with an employee who believes that her employment has been terminated and who is seeking clarification.

I also attach weight to the evidence of the witness, Christine Deasy, who encountered the Complainant immediately after the meeting. The witness described the Complainant as upset and was told that she had been fired. She advised the Complainant to obtain written confirmation. This contemporaneous account supports the Complainant’s understanding of events and further undermines the Respondent’s assertion that a resignation had occurred. She gave evidence that Mr A was present when he returned with the message from Mr Cuttriss that she (the Complainant) would receive confirmation of her dismissal in writing.

A further significant factor is the absence of Mr A as a witness. It was accepted that he was the individual who communicated the outcome of the meeting to the Complainant and who functioned as an intermediary between her and management. In the absence of his evidence, I am left with the direct and uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant as to what she was told. I accept her evidence that she was informed that her employment had ended and that this position was confirmed following further communication with management.

I do not accept the Respondent’s submission that the termination arose from a misunderstanding. If there had been any genuine ambiguity as to the Complainant’s position, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to clarify that position directly with her. No such clarification took place. Instead, the Complainant was told to leave the workplace, she cleared her desk, and she departed that day. At no point was she informed that her employment continued or that she had not resigned.

I also note the evidence of Mr Cuttriss, who accepted that his conduct during the earlier incident was not appropriate and that he raised his voice. The meeting of 29 January 2024 must be viewed in that context. It was not a neutral exchange but the culmination of a distressing interaction for the Complainant. In such circumstances, any statement made by her required careful and reasonable interpretation. That did not occur.

In light of all of the evidence, the Respondent unreasonably construed an ambiguous and emotionally expressed statement as a resignation and, in doing so, brought the employment relationship to an end by dismissing her.

Under s.6 of the 1977 Act, the dismissal is presumed unfair unless the Respondent shows it resulted wholly or mainly from a permissible ground and that fair procedures were observed. The reasonableness or otherwise of an employer in conducting a dismissal is addressed under Section6(7) of the Act which provides:

"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 adjudication officer or the Labour 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."

Having found that the Complainant was dismissed by the Respondent on 29 January 2024 it is evident that the dismissal was affected summarily. No investigation was conducted, no disciplinary process was initiated, no opportunity to respond was afforded, no right to representation was provided, and no appeal mechanism was offered. The Respondent’s position that no procedures were required cannot be sustained once it is established that a dismissal occurred.

For the reasons outlined above I find the Complainant was summarily dismissed in the absence of any fair procedures. In the absence of any substantial justification for that dismissal, it was unfair within the meaning of the 1977 Act.

Section 7 of the 1977 Act provides that compensation shall be such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, including the financial loss sustained by the Complainant and the extent to which that loss was attributable to the dismissal, subject to the duty to mitigate that loss.

The Complainant’s net earnings at the time of dismissal were €1,198 per month based on a 20-hour working week.

Having considered the Complainant’s evidence, she was medically unfit for work for a period following the dismissal. Her evidence, which was not materially challenged, was that she attended her GP on 29 January 2024 and remained unfit for work until mid-March 2024. I accept that during this period she was not in a position to seek or obtain alternative employment and that no deduction should be made in respect of mitigation for that timeframe.

The Complainant gave evidence that she commenced a period of temporary employment on or about 26 March 2024, which continued until the end of May 2024. She stated that she worked 18 to 20 hours per week in that role and accepted that her rate of pay during this period was higher than her earnings with the Respondent. I therefore find that the Complainant did not suffer a financial loss during this period.

Following the conclusion of that temporary role in or around the end of May 2024, the Complainant gave evidence that she resumed seeking employment. She did some temporary work for a company between 29 November and 16 January, again with no loss.

 I note that her evidence in this regard was limited and unsupported by documentary evidence. She accepted that her applications were primarily confined to administrative roles. The evidence suggests that her efforts, while genuine to an extent, were not as extensive or as broad as would be expected. In particular, she did not demonstrate that she sought a wide range of alternative employment outside her preferred field, nor did she provide detailed evidence of sustained daily or weekly job-seeking activity.

Although the Complainant made efforts to mitigate her loss, I am not satisfied that she took all reasonable steps necessary to do so. In assessing compensation, I must therefore discount the award to reflect this limited mitigation.

In calculating financial loss, I take the following periods into account:

• From 29 January 2024 to mid-March 2024 (approximately 6 weeks): period of certified illness, no mitigation required.
• From mid-March 2024 to 26 March 2024: brief period of job-seeking.
• From 26 March 2024 to late May 2024: period of employment with no financial loss.
• From 29 November 2024 to 16 January 2025 period of employment with no loss.
• From May 2025 to the date of hearing she occupied a permanent position with no loss.

Taking all of these factors into account and having regard to the Complainant’s monthly net earnings of €1,198, I assess her total financial loss on a broad-brush basis. Allowing for the period of illness, the period of alternative employment, and applying a reduction to reflect incomplete mitigation efforts thereafter, I find that an award equivalent to approximately sixmonths’ net pay is €7188 just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Accordingly, I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of which I find to be just and equitable having regard to the financial loss sustained and the Complainant’s obligation to mitigate that loss.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Section 5 of the Act provides:

Notification of changes

(1)    Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a)    the day on which the change takes effect, or

(b)    (b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee's departure.

(2)    Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute [other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order] or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.

The Complainant contends that her terms and conditions of employment were altered, in particular that her working hours were reduced without written notification, contrary to the provisions of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

In considering this complaint, I have had regard to both the written submissions and the oral evidence adduced at hearing. The Complainant gave evidence that a meeting took place at which her hours were discussed and, she contends, reduced. However, under cross-examination, the Complainant was unable to provide firm or consistent evidence as to when such a meeting occurred, the precise terms of any alleged change, or the extent to which her hours were in fact reduced. Her evidence in this regard lacked specificity and was not supported by documentary material.

In contrast, I found the evidence of the witness, Ms. Fiona Cuttriss, to be clear and consistent on this point. The witness rejected the assertion that the Complainant’s hours were reduced and gave evidence that, over the course of the Complainant’s employment, her hours in fact increased. This evidence was not materially challenged in cross-examination and was supported by the Respondent’s position that the Complainant frequently sought additional hours.

On the totality of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that there was any detrimental change to her contractual hours of work. In circumstances where no such change has been proven, the question of whether the Respondent failed to provide written notification of such a change does not arise. I find that this complaint was not well founded.

CA-00064644-001: For the reasons outlined above, I find the Complainant was dismissed and the manner of her dismissal was unfair. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the net sum of €7188, which is the equivalence of 6 months net pay.

CA-00064644-003: for the reasons outlined above, I find the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 was not well founded.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Fact of Dismissal. Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.