Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Edward  Kenny

ACM Building Contractors Ltd.

Representatives

Self-represented

Did not attend

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00075346-001

11/09/2025

The Complainant states that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 15 May 2023 as a construction worker. The Complainant states that he had an accident in work in October 2024 where he fell two stories off scaffolding and had fractured ribs and damage to his lower back. He states that the Respondent failed to report the accident to the appropriate authorities. The Complainant states following the accident he was out sick for 6 weeks due to his injuries.  The Complainant states that he returned to work in late December 2024 but was still in a lot of pain.

The Complainant states that on 11 August 2025, his GP referred him for tests including an MRI scan. He states that even though the previous accident happened in work, the Respondent would not pay for the scans and he had to pay the costs himself.

The Complainant states at this juncture he went to a solicitor to seek assistance and they wrote to the Respondent in mid August 2025 outlining their concerns with regard to the manner in which the Complainant was being treated in the workplace.

The Complainant alleges that when he sent the Respondent a copy of his medical certificate, the Respondent texted him back stating “what is that for, stop sending me rubbish”.

The Complainant states that his last week working at the Respondent was in late July 2025. He had requested the Respondent to complete a medical form so that he could provide same to social welfare in order to obtain illness benefit but the Respondent would not engage.

The Complainant subsequently went on the revenue website and noted that the Respondent had ceased his job as of 15 August 2025.

The Complainant states that he was not informed by the Respondent of his dismissal and no fair procedures or process was applied in relation to his termination of employment.

The Complainant stated that he is currently unfit for work and remains on illness benefit from social welfare.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Law

Unfair Dismissal

The Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977-2015 (“the Acts”) defines “dismissal” in relation to an employee as including the termination by the employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee.

Section 6(1) of the Acts provides:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”.

Section 6(6) of the Acts provides:

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an 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(7) of the Acts 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) of section 7 (2) of this Act”.

Section 7(1) of the Acts provides:

“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 or the Labour Court, as the case may be, 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) 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 . . . . ”

Section 7(2) provides:

“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 said financial loss was attributable to an action, 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, and

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

Section 7(3) provides “within 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”.

Based on the uncontested sworn evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant has established that he was subjected to an unfair dismissal by the Respondent. I found the Complainant to be a credible and cogent witness.

I note that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent since 15 May 2023.  I note that he had an accident in work in October 2024 and that following the accident he was out sick for 6 weeks due to his injuries.  The Complainant stated that he returned to work in late December 2024. However, he states that he was still in a lot of pain and on 11 August 2025, his GP referred him for tests including an MRI scan due to his condition. The Complainant stated that even though the previous accident happened in work, the Respondent would not pay for the scans and he had to pay the medical costs himself.

The Complainant stated at this juncture he went to a solicitor to seek assistance and they wrote to the Respondent in mid August 2025 outlining their concerns with regard to the manner in which the Complainant was being treated following his accident in the workplace.

I note that the Complainant’s last week working at the Respondent was in late July 2025 due to his ill health. He had requested the Respondent to complete medical forms so that he could provide same to social welfare in order to obtain illness benefit. The Complainant stated that the Respondent would not engage with him.

I note that the Complainant subsequently went on the revenue website and discovered that the Respondent had ceased his job as of 15 August 2025.

Based on the evidence heard, I conclude that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent without any recourse to fair procedures. 

The Act at Section 7 requires an assessment of the financial loss attributable to the dismissal suffered by the Complainant and, where no such loss has occurred confines the jurisdiction to a maximum award of 4 weeks remuneration.

The Complainant stated at the hearing that he is currently unfit for work and remains on illness benefit from social welfare. Having considered the matter I find that any loss suffered by the Complainant since his dismissal was attributable to his incapacity to engage in employment as a result of ill health and, consequently, not attributable to his dismissal. In those circumstances the maximum award payable to the Complainant arising from his unfair dismissal is, in accordance with the Act at Section 7, a sum equivalent to four weeks remuneration. On that basis, I award the Complainant compensation in the amount of €2,650 which is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. I award the Complainant  financial compensation of €2,650 being a sum equivalent to four weeks remuneration.

Unfair Dismissals Act