Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Draughtsman

Constructive Services Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Attendance

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR-SC-00004253

08/05/2025

The Worker referred a dispute concerning the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 3 April 2024 and his employment ended on 28 February 2025. He was employed as a senior draughtsman and earned €1,250 gross; net €895.78 per week.

The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Commission was informed by correspondence from the Employer’s solicitor dated 21 April 2026 that the Employer would not be engaging with the process. The matter therefore proceeded on the basis of the uncontested submission  of the Worker.

The Worker submitted  that at the end of January 2025 the Employer engaged him in an informal discussion during which he was told that a contract had not been secured and that there might be a lack of work. The Worker was informed that a layoff from March was possible and that he could begin looking for alternative employment. The Worker understood this to be a tentative discussion rather than a definitive decision.

He continued working throughout February and had a full workload. Approximately one week before the end of the month, the Worker sought clarification from the Employer as to his position. He was informed that no decision had yet been made and that the matter would be revisited. No further communication was provided to him.

On 28 February 2025, after completing his working day and leaving the premises, the Worker received a telephone call from a manager during which he was asked why he had not said goodbye. It was at that point that he was informed that it had been his last day of employment. The Worker returned to the workplace and was told that the January conversation constituted notice of termination. The Worker disputed this and maintained that no clear or formal notice, whether verbal or written, had been given.

The Worker described the manner of his dismissal as abrupt and lacking in basic respect and clarity. He stated at hearing that he remained out of work for approximately four and a half months following the termination but has since secured alternative employment.

The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Employer’s solicitor wrote to the WRC on 21 April 2026 to say they would not be engaging with the process.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account the  submission presented to me by the Worker.

In circumstances where the Employer has chosen not to attend or contest the claim, I must assess the matter on the basis of the unchallenged  presented by the Worker.

Although the Worker does not have the requisite service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the Workplace Relations Commission is entitled under the Industrial Relations Acts to consider whether the conduct of the Employer was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the conversation which took place in January 2025 was speculative and conditional in nature. It referred to a possible layoff depending on future developments and did not constitute clear or unequivocal notice of dismissal. I accept the Worker’s account that he reasonably understood his employment to be continuing unless and until a definitive decision was communicated.

I further find that the Worker took reasonable steps to clarify his position when he sought an update from the Employer approximately one week prior to the termination of his employment. He was informed at that time that no decision had been made and that the matter would be revisited. No such follow-up occurred. This failure to communicate a final decision represents a significant deficiency on the part of the Employer.

The manner in which the Worker became aware of his dismissal is of particular concern. The fact that he was informed, after leaving the workplace on his final day, by way of a telephone call from a third party, that his employment had ended falls well below the standard of fair and reasonable treatment expected in an employment relationship. I am satisfied that the Worker was effectively dismissed without prior warning and without confirmation of the decision. Even in circumstances where a downturn in work may necessitate a termination of employment, an employer is expected to communicate clearly with the employee, to provide appropriate notice, and to ensure that the process is handled in a manner consistent with basic fairness and dignity. In this case, those fundamental requirements were not met.

I also note that the Employer, through his solicitor, indicated that he would not be engaging with the process and did not attend the hearing to provide any explanation or justification for the manner in which the dismissal was affected. In those circumstances, the Worker’s account stands uncontradicted.

I find that, while the underlying reason for the termination may have been a lack of available work, the manner in which the dismissal was carried out was procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

Section 13 Industrial Relations Act 2026.