UDD1728

The Adjudication Officer issued the decision on 16 September 2016. The Complainant appealed against that award on 3 November 2016. The matter came before the Court on 21 April 2017.

The Respondent Company was placed in liquidation with Mr Alan McLean, Whiteside Cullinan, Chartered Accountants appointed liquidator.

Mr McLean was notified of the terms of the appeal. He notified the Court that he was not contesting the claims made by the Complainant and on that basis would neither attend nor be represented at the hearing.

When the case was called Ms Ryan told the Court that she was not contesting the findings of the Adjudication Officer. She reiterated the facts of the case as set out in the Adjudication Officer’s Decision. She submitted however that the compensation awarded by the Adjudication Officer failed to take into account the extent to which she had sought alternative employment, details of which were supplied to the Court. She also submitted that, on the basis of those failed efforts, it was very unlikely that she would secure work at the level of salary she enjoyed while employed by the Respondent. She expected that she would most probably be required to take employment at the rate of 50% of the salary on which she was employed. Finally she told the Court that she was undergoing training courses to equip her to secure alternative employment.

The liquidator did not attend the hearing or in any other way challenge or rebut the evidence offered by the Complainant.

Findings of the Court

The Court affirms the unfair dismissal of the Complainant by the Respondent.

In considering the level of compensation to apply in this case the Court notes that the Complainant was unavailable for work for a period of time following her dismissal. The Court finds that such periods cannot be taken into consideration as a period of loss of income as the Complainant was not available for work and she give no evidence that she would, had she not been dismissed, have benefitted from the terms of a sick pay scheme or other insurance scheme that would have protected her income while absent from work due to illness.

However she recovered from that illness and made extensive efforts to secure employment. She outlined those efforts to the Court. She also undertook training courses to reskill herself to participate in the labour market. Finally she demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction that it was unlikely she would be in a position to secure work in the foreseeable future that would provide her with a salary greater than 50% of the salary she received before she was unfairly dismissed.

On this basis the Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Adjudication officer is not sufficient in this case. The Court assesses the appropriate level of compensation to be €10,400 and varies the decision of the Adjudication Officer accordingly.

Determination

The Court determines that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and orders the Respondent to pay her compensation in the sum of €10,400. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The appeal is allowed. The Court so determines.

For the purpose of achieving clarity in this and related matters that came before the Adjudication Officer this determination does not affect the decision in the complaint reference number ca-0000232-001 that was dealt with in adjudication decision ADJ-00002560 that issued together with the decision in this case on 16 September 2016.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Brendan Hayes
LS______________________
12 June 2016Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.