UD1627/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                               CASE NO.

Donna Frawley           -claimant

                                                                                                                   UD1627/2013

against

Lionbridge International        -respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:    Mr R.  Maguire, B.L.

Members:     Mr D.  Peakin

                     Mr J.  Flannery

heard this claim at Dublin on 29th January 2015

Representation:

Claimant:        Mr. Conor Bowman B.L. instructed by Mr. Stan Murphy, Murphy’s Solicitors, Mount Clarence House, 91 Upper Georges Street, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin

Respondent:    Mr. Des Ryan B.L. instructed by Ms Louise Moore, William Fry,

Fitzwilton House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2

Background:

It was conceded by the respondent company that the claimant was unfairly dismissed from her employment.

The claimant was employed for eighteen years with the respondent company until the 8^th November 2013 by which time she held a project managing role.  It was conceded by the respondent company that the claimant was unfairly dismissed from her employment.  The company requested the Tribunal to find that compensation was the appropriate remedy. 

It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that the circumstances of the unfair dismissal were germane to the issue of remedy and should be heard by the Tribunal.  It was outlined to the Tribunal that on the 8^th November 2013 the claimant returned from lunch to discover that she could not unlock her computer account.  The claimant was summoned to a meeting with her manager and the Human Resources Manager.  The claimant was informed at this meeting that she was dismissed with immediate effect and had ten minutes to leave the building.  There were no historical difficulties of any kind during the claimant’s employment history.  There were no consultations with staff regarding redundancies within the company.  The claimant was provided with an envelope at this meeting which she opened later.  A sum referred to as a “severance agreement” was offered to the claimant on the proviso that she sign away her rights under the unfair dismissals legislation and it stated that the claimant had received legal advice.  However, the claimant had not received any such advice.  The claimant later queried if the sum being offered was by way of a redundancy payment as the sum offered was less than statutory redundancy but the reply she received was “the company is not going down the redundancy route on this occasion.”  

Subsequently, the claimant became aware that twelve employees in total were dismissed from the company the same day.  The claimant did not accept the severance sum offered.  The claimant’s position was advertised by the respondent within the same month as her dismissal but on a twelve-month contract basis.   This option was not offered to the claimant.

The claimant has sought to mitigate her loss since the dismissal but has only managed to secure work on a contract basis and on a lesser salary.  At the time of hearing the claimant’s current contract was due to finish at the end of March 2015.  The claimant is also at the loss of pension contributions and health insurance premiums.  An actuarial report was opened to the Tribunal and supported by evidence from the witness who compiled the report in order to value the extra benefits of the claimant’s employment with the respondent company.   

Determination:

In this particular case, the Respondent admitted that the dismissal was unfair. In addition, the Claimant clarified at the hearing that in the circumstances the only remedy being sought was compensation.

The Tribunal accepts that the Claimant was dismissed without any procedure whatsoever let alone any fair procedure. On the basis of the evidence heard by the Tribunal on behalf of the Claimant (who was the only witness to give evidence), it is apparent that the Respondent made a crude economic decision and decided that it would terminate the Claimant’s employment without any regard for the Claimant herself. This appears to have been motivated by a wish to replace the permanent employment of the Claimant with an impermanent position, though presumably in circumstances where the Respondent did not consider that there was a redundancy situation.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant made every reasonable effort to mitigate her loss and on the basis of the evidence the Tribunal finds that compensation of €94,000 is the appropriate remedy for the claimant. 

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)