Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Darragh  Travers

Exwell Medical Limited

Representatives

In person

Senior Management

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-00072732-001

24/06/2025

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Clinical Exercise Co-Ordinator from 22nd April 2024 on a 12 -month fixed term contract.  The complainants’ employment continued beyond the end of the 12-month period and ended on or about 2nd May 2025. The complaint submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 24th June 2025 relates to an alleged unfair dismissal.

The respondent contends that the worker’s employment ended by virtue of the expiry of the 12-month fixed term contract and in those circumstances the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act do not apply. Notwithstanding this point, the respondent also stated that the reasons the fixed term contract was not renewed was due to performance related concerns, operational considerations (extended annual leave), failure to comply with cash handling procedures and deficiencies in administrative compliance.

The respondent stated that there were never any issues raised by the complainant in respect of staff shortages and that there were always two people conducting the exercise classes. The respondent acknowledged that sometimes staff can be under pressure, but the financial piece can be left until the end once the money taken in is put away safely. The respondent did not accept that cash is left unattended as this is not in compliance with the policy that everyone was trained in including the complainant The respondent stated that the logs were often not completed and that lodgements did not match the amount of cash taken. While there is no suggestion of theft or anything inappropriate on the part of the complainant, the respondent contends that the failure to follow the correct procedures was something that it had to take very seriously.  The respondent argued that the complainant accepted he had not followed cash handling procedures on occasion and that it was his responsibility to do so.

The respondent stated that the decision not to renew the contract was made by four senior members of management after careful consideration. The respondent contends that it acted fairly towards the complainant and his complaint alleging unfair dismissal should fail.

The complainant does not accept the termination of his employment arose due to the non-renewal of a fixed term contract. The complainant’s position is that he was unfairly dismissed without any due process in respect of cash handling procedures and related issues.

The complainant represented himself at the adjudication hearing and addressed his complaint by way of written and oral submission. The complainant stated that he was employed as a clinical exercise co-ordinator and that he and a colleague would teach exercise and fitness classes to clients who suffered from chronic pain. The complainant stated that he had received minimal cash handling procedures training and that cash would often be left unattended due to staff shortages. The complainant described situations where one person would sign in the clients and the other would teach the exercise class. There were many occasions where clients would say they had paid another staff member previously. The complainant stated that while delays may have taken place in respect of making lodgements, all monies collected were lodged.  In respect of cash handling procedures and training, the complainant’s position is that these were only put in place after he had been dismissed and despite the procedural deficiencies occurring across the organisation, he was the only person who was dismissed.

The complainant also highlighted the inconsistencies in the respondent’s position in respect of his dismissal. Specifically, the complainant noted that the dismissal was supposedly the non-renewal of a fixed term contract, yet the respondent also claimed it was for performance related reasons and other issues.

The complainant’s position is that he was not subject to a disciplinary process or given the right to fair procedures or representation in respect of the meetings that led to his dismissal. The complainant further stated that he was not given an opportunity to appeal the dismissal. The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to his complaint of unfair dismissal.

I have considered the submissions of both parties to this complaint. The respondent contends that the complainant was employed on a 12-month fixed term contract and the termination of employment arose due to a decision not to renew the contract for various reasons. The respondent argued that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 do not apply and that the contract ended in line with its own terms. On this point I note that the complainant continued to work for well over a week following the supposed expiry of his fixed term contract.

Both parties submitted copies of the contract of employment in post hearing correspondence. Neither of the contracts submitted were signed by the complainant. On this issue I note the recent Labour Court Determination in Tipperary ETB and Tessa King UDD2618 wherein the Court outlined the provisions of Section 2(2)(b) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 as follows:

“(2) Subject to subsection (2A), this Act shall not apply in relation to—

(b) dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting onlyof the expiry or cesser aforesaid.”

The unsigned contract submitted is not a valid fixed term contract under the Act and the dismissal was not only (emphasis added) based on the expiry of the fixed term. On that basis, the respondent’s contention that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 do not apply to the termination of the complainant’s employment is incorrect.

Other reasons for dismissal

Notwithstanding the above stated position relating to the termination of the complainant’s employment, the respondent also argued that there were other reasons for the complainant’s dismissal. Issues such as performance concerns, operational considerations (extended annual leave), failure to comply with cash handling procedures and deficiencies in administrative compliance were also cited as reasons for the non-renewal of the complainant’s contract.

Mitigation of Loss

The complainant submitted several job applications following his dismissal with the respondent. He commenced new employment at the beginning of September 2025 on a self-employed basis. While the complainant has shown that he made efforts to mitigate his losses in seeking alternative employment following his dismissal he has not provided further evidence that he continues to seek employment that would provide the same level of earnings as when employed by the respondent. In respect of his calculated losses, the complainant quantifies his losses at €14,691.00 to date with an ongoing future loss of €7,720.00 per year due to his current level of earnings.

Conclusion

I note that the complainant was first engaged by the respondent while in college on an internship and then began working part time giving fitness/exercise classes on a weekly basis. The complainant’s employment then became full time from April 2024 and continued for a period of more than twelve months until it ended on or about 2nd May 2025.

Having considered the substance of the complaint, I find that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 apply to the complainant as his purported fixed term contract of employment was not signed by him and there were also other reasons cited by the respondent for his dismissal. As the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 do apply, the complainant was entitled to fair procedures in respect of the issues that led to his dismissal. While there was some level of investigation into the issues raised by the respondent, I find that not being facilitated with representation at investigation meetings, the lack of any disciplinary process prior to dismissal or any opportunity to appeal the termination of his employment prevented the complainant providing reasons and explanations concerning his employment and reputation. In conclusion, I find that the way this matter was handled by the respondent renders the complainant’s dismissal unfair from both a procedural and substantive perspective.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €8,000.00 in compensation which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the complaint.

Unfair dismissal, non-renewal of fixed term contract