Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Helen  Nason

Horizon Controls Limited

Representatives

Joseph Bradley BL Ormonde Solicitors

David Gaffney Padraig J. Sheehan 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-00064289-001

24/06/2024

The Complainant was employed as Chief Financial Officer with the company from 5th December 2022 until 30th April 2024.

The Complainant was employed without incident or performance issue until 30th April 2024.

The Complainant warned the CEO on several occasions of the risks of an investment into a tech project which was not profitable and its viability. Investment was not taking place into other profitable areas of the business. One of the Respondent companies lost a multimillion euro contract two to three months before the Complainant’s dismissal took place. On 3rd of April 2024, without reason or cause, the Complainant was informed she no longer had a job, and would be let go. When she asked for a reason for her dismissal, none was forthcoming from the HR Manager or the CEO. No right of appeal was provided. The Complainant’s access to the IT system was revoked a few minutes later.

The Complainant was given no explanation for her dismissal. The Respondent failed to comply with a statutory request under s14 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 for the reasons for her dismissal and to furnish personal data. The Complainant says her dismissal is unfair and the Respondent cannot show the dismissal was in accordance with S6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 or other substantial grounds. No fair procedures were applied, no best practice was followed, the Complainant was unaccompanied at the meeting, and she did not contribute to her dismissal in anyway.

The Complainant commenced looking for other work immediately and applied for one hundred and forty-six roles. She obtained a new role on 9th October 2025, at a reduced salary. Her financial loss is €60,230.00 and is ongoing.

The Respondent submits the termination of the Complainant’s employment was due to redundancy, it was genuine and legitimate, but accepts that the manner in which such termination was conducted was flawed. The Complainant was aware that the business was not performing. She was involved in and effected eleven redundancies prior to her own position being made redundant. The Complainant advised the Respondent in a profit and loss account that it was 15% under budget in March and 18% under budget in April 2024 in the EU and 5% under budget in March and 9% under budget in April 2024 in the US.

Since termination of the Complainant’s employment, the Respondent has made seventeen redundancies and did not replace twenty employees that left voluntarily. The Respondent also implemented short-term arrangements and salary reductions with a number of employees in order to ensure the future viability of the company.

The Complainant is seeking reinstatement or compensation as a form of redress. The Respondent submits reinstatement is neither viable nor appropriate in the circumstances. The role is redundant and has not been replaced. The Complainant has secured alternative employment, so reinstatement is not an appropriate form of redress.

The Respondent does not accept the efforts by the Complainant to mitigate her losses were genuine in nature, and challenges the alleged mitigation of losses. The Complainant was Chief Financial Officer of a multinational company previously. The Respondent says the Complainant should not have been six months out of work.

I heard and considered carefully the submissions and evidence of the parties.

The Complainant was employed as Chief Financial Officer with the Respondent until her dismissal on 30th April 2024.

On the second day of the hearing, the Respondent conceded that the procedure to dismiss the Complainant was unfair under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The remaining issue is the obligation of the Complainant to mitigate her financial loss arising from the dismissal.

The Complainant gave evidence that she spent a number of hours every day applying for new positions from the date she was dismissed. She is a qualified Chartered Accountant. The position with the Respondent was fully remote, and she was prepared to relocate if necessary. She said the fact she was not provided with a reason for her dismissal caused her difficulty for re-employment. There were not many Chief Financial Officer roles available. She searched for Financial Controller and Director roles as well. The Complainant submitted she would take a role with a lesser salary, but not significantly below expectations. The role she was held had a salary of €130,000 euro with benefits.

The Respondent’s representative made submissions that there was a derisory attempt to look for alternative work. The Complainant did not consider roles with salaries of forty or fifty thousand euro with a view to negotiating upwards. He says the Complainant stopped making efforts to get roles and took the summer off. No communications from employers were included in the documents.

Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 as amended provides that a dismissal of an employee shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal, unless having regard to all the circumstances there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6 (4) (1) of the Acts provide that without prejudice to the generality of Section 6 (1), the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purpose of the Act not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one of the following:

(a)    the capability, competence and qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind that he was employed by the employer to do:

(b)    the conduct of the employee,

(c)     the redundancy of the employee, and

(d)    the employee being unable to work or to continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under statute or imposed or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

Section 6 (1) (6) of the Act provides in determining whether the dismissal of the employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6 (1) (7) of the Act 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 as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so-

(a)    to the reasonableness of the conduct, or otherwise (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 S14 (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.

S14 (4) Where an employee is dismissed, the employer shall, if so requested, furnish to the employee within 14 days of the request, particulars in writing of the principal grounds for dismissal, but, in determining for the purposes of this Act whether, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the dismissal was an unfair dismissal, there may be taken into account any other grounds which, subject to the provisions of this Act and having regard to all the circumstances, are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

The Complainant was not provided with any reason for her dismissal when she was dismissed nor subsequently when it was requested in writing pursuant to S14 (4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. A few months earlier following loss of a contract, the Respondent made eleven employees redundant, and twenty employees left voluntarily.

The Respondent now says the reason for dismissal was due to redundancy, but did not rely on this reason at the time of the Complainant’s dismissal. The Respondent accepts the procedures to dismiss the Complainant were flawed and she was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant’s role has not been replaced.

I find the Respondent has not discharged the onus to provide a ground within S6 (4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 or other substantial ground for dismissal of the Complainant. The failure to provide any reason was of itself unreasonable, and undoubtedly caused difficulty for the Complainant in seeking other employment. The Complainant was unfairly dismissed on substantive and procedural grounds.

The redress sought by the Complainant is reinstatement or compensation. There is evidence of a background of financial difficulties for the Respondent, and reduced terms and conditions for other staff of the organisation. The Complainant is now employed elsewhere. The appropriate redress in this case is compensation.

The decision in Sheehan and Continental Administration Company Ltd UD858/1999 which has been approved by the Labour Court stated:

“A Claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work. It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work…The time that a Claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss”.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence that she looked for work for a number of hours each day, apart from holidays. She applied for an extensive amount of roles. I am satisfied that she made reasonable efforts to mitigate her financial loss, she subsequently took up a role in October 2024 with a lesser salary and no comparable benefits.

The Complainant’s financial loss including superannuation until the date of hearing is €60,230.00. In all the circumstances, it is just and equitable that the Respondent pay compensation of €60,230.00 gross to the Complainant by way of redress and I direct same.

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed. I direct compensation of €60,230.00 to be paid by the Respondent to the Complainant.