Blog Layout

Unfair Dismissal - Compensation Considerations


Unfair Dismissal Compensation Considerations

Unfair Dismissal - Compensation


In most circumstances, when an individual brings a claim of unfair dismissal, if successful, they may be awarded loss of earnings from the termination date until they obtain new employment. In theory, a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act can result in an award of up to 2 years’ salary, however these awards are quite rare.


However, the case of An Optical Assistant -v- Retail Optical Shop (ADJ00018205), highlights the considerations an Adjudication Officer will factor when deciding whether or not to award a higher compensation amount than the loss of earnings.


Background


The complainant employee commenced employment with the respondent company on 01 April 2014. On 15 November 2018, she received a solicitor’s letter, purportedly on behalf of the complainant, enclosing her P45. On the P45 document her end of employment date was given as 03 November 2018. The letter contained a detailed series of questions concerning her employment status, who her employer was, details of her contact of employment and other information that would have ordinarily been provided for previously under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The complainant employee was most perplexed as there had been no formal notice of termination of employment, no redundancy process or investigation or disciplinary process.


In response, the respondent company countered that, having recently acquired the shop from which the complainant employee purportedly worked, they discovered that a number of individuals on the payroll were not working at the store and therefore their employment was terminated. 


One of the directors of the complainant company noted that this termination was part of a “tidying up” process and that the individual concerned was never an actual employee of the store in question.


Other Factors - Award of Compensation


The Adjudication Officer in this matter noted that this case was governed by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 supported by SI 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures and the very considerable body of precedent law in these cases. The case law from the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Labour Court and the higher courts emphasised the paramount role of the rules of natural justice in all cases. The Adjudication Officer noted that, from the evidence given, it was clear that the complainant had been an employee. However, she was a low ranking employee and had, in effect, to his view, become “collateral damage” in the main commercial dispute between certain directors. Proper procedures of formal investigation, meetings to consider her status and the opportunity of an appeal did not take place prior to any decision to dismiss the complainant employee. The issuing of the P45 constituted a dismissal.


Award of Compensation under Unfair Dismissals Act


The Adjudication Officer found that no rules of natural justice were observed. That being the case, the Adjudication Officer deemed that one year’s gross salary, being approximately €30,000, is an appropriate award given that proper procedure was not followed in any fashion whatsoever.


Further Information


For further information, please contact the author of this article, Barry Crushell.

Share

Compensation for workplace stress & anxiety
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
Psychological damage is difficult to measure and quantify, making it difficult for assessors to determine its impact. The Personal Injuries Guidelines were established by the Judicial Council in 2021 under the Judicial Council Act 2019 to identify appropriate levels of damages for different forms of personal injuries. The guidelines aim to enhance understanding of the evaluation and allocation of compensation for personal injuries to achieve more uniformity in awards.
How much compensation for stress at work?
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
In this article, we examine the circumstances that give rise to a personal injuries claim for the stress and anxiety caused by a toxic working environment.
13 Feb, 2024
The case of Electricity Supply Board -v- Kieran Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 examines whether an employee has a right to silence in the context of workplace investigations. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) (the Plaintiff) brought a case against Mr Sharkey (the Defendant) alleging that his failure to answer certain questions, in the context of a workplace investigations that was also subject to parallel criminal proceedings, amounted to a repudiation of his contract of employment or, in the alternative, that the ESB was entitled to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated by him.
Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999
26 Jan, 2024
The Form 3 is used when an individual wants to make a representation to the Minister for Justice and Equality pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999. It is an appeal to a decision of the Minister for Justice in respect of an immigration application.
Determining an Employer
03 Jan, 2024
The case of Amanda Craddock v Head–Hunt International Limited (ADJ00036831) examines the circumstances under which a redundancy payment would ordinarily be payable to an agency worker.
Claims before the WRC
18 Dec, 2023
In this article, we consider what will be considered frivolous or vexatious, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), when a complaint is presented to them we do so by examining several claims initiated by Mr. Leon O’Connor against various companies.
Show More
Share by: