Blog Layout

Unfair Dismissal - Contribution of Employee to Dismissal


Unfair dismissal contributions

Introduction


While an employee may often win their claim of unfair dismissal, an Adjudication Officer may reduce the amount awarded on foot of the conduct of that employee.


In this article, we review a number of cases that involve employees who were successful in their claims of unfair dismissal, but who had their compensation reduced to reflect the fact that their own conduct had contributed to their dismissal. 


Jacinta Doyle v River Island Clothing Co. (Ireland) Ltd (ADJ-00029939)


In this case the Adjudication Officer noted the refusal of the Complainant to engage in the appeals process. It was stated that: “In terms of a standard Unfair Dismissals case, this refusal is very detrimental to the complainant. There is extensive case law to support this point”. 


The Adjudication Officer upheld the complaint under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977. However, only €1000 was awarded to the Complainant due to the fact that “the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds but with a very significant Complainant counterweight”. 


A PM/ Complainant v A Food Producer (ADJ-00023204)


In this case, despite finding that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant’s conduct had contributed to the decision to dismiss him. 


This conduct included the Complainant’s “attitude, his demeanour, his lack of trust in his employer – setting them up with recorded meetings, his repeated argumentative approach at meetings and his repeated references to wanting an offer to leave.” In the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, all of these actions had “undoubtedly contributed to his own downfall”. 


As a result of this, the Adjudication Officer concluded that the compensation to be awarded to the Complainant should be reduced by 60%. 


A Senior Receptionist v A Boutique Hotel (ADJ-00016679)


In this case, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. 


In considering the amount of compensation to be awarded, the Adjudication Officer noted section 7(1)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 which states that when considering the issue of compensation, an Adjudication Officer must consider what is “just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances”. 


He also noted section 7(2)(f) which states that the complainant’s contribution to the situation must be taken into account. 


The Adjudication Officer concluded that the actions of the Complainant in this case warranted a reduction of 25% in the amount of compensation to be awarded. It was held that the Complainant had contributed to his own dismissal by acting in an intimidatory manner towards a Ms. XF. 


Motor Mechanic v A Transport Company (ADJ-00021420)


Similarly, in this case the Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant had been dismissed as a form of penalisation under the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act,2005. 


However, they acknowledged that the employee had made a significant contribution to the situation. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded was reduced in order to reflect this. 


Key Takeaways 


What both employers and employees should take away from these cases is that while an employee may be found to be unfairly dismissed, the compensation awarded to them will be reduced to reflect the contribution that they have made to their own downfall. 


Therefore, before employees decide to take a claim, they should consider to what extent their own actions contributed to the dismissal. 


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: