Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A General Manager

A Sports Club

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-00021245-001

20/08/2018

The complainant was a General Manager of an elite-level sports club. His employment ended when the club was taken over. The fact of dismissal is disputed. The parties disagreed as to the wages or costs the respondent agreed to pay the complainant. This led to a dispute over what could be counted as financial loss arising from a dismissal. This dispute relates to income from a car park adjacent to the club’s ground.

The complainant outlined that he started working for the respondent on the 21st December 2014 in the role of General Manager/Club Secretary of an elite-level sporting team. This was a full-time role. The complainant’s pay increased to €120 per week. In April/May 2015, the complainant relocated to live close to the respondent ground and the respondent agreed to pay his accommodation costs. From the end of 2016, the complainant’s remuneration was €120 per week and the accommodation cost of €1,100 per month.

The complainant said that during the last week of July 2018, he received a phone call from the new owner of the respondent, who said he was taking over. There was a fixture the following day and that weekend, the complainant compiled information for the new owner. On Tuesday, 31st July 2018, he met the owner, who said that the complainant did not fit into the plans for the club. The complainant said that he had no pre-warning and asked for this decision in writing. The complainant emailed the following day with his version of what happened.

The complainant outlined that he was dismissed on the spot, without notice. In respect of the letter dated the 17th April 2015, the complainant outlined that this set out the terms of his employment, including the commitment to pay for his accommodation. He said that this was printed on the headed paper then available.

In questioning, it was put to the complainant that the letter of the 17th April 2015 did not use contemporaneous headed paper (a jersey provider was not then a sponsor and the respondent did not then have the link to a named underage club). It was also put to the complainant that this letter was on different headed paper to other correspondence. It was put to the complainant that the respondent did not accept the veracity of the letter produced in evidence. It was put to the complainant that, in 2015, the respondent had a link with a different underage club to the one cited in the headed paper. In reply, the complainant said that he could not explain why the letters of the 7th and 15th April were on different headed paper.

It was put to the complainant that the respondent had never paid the accommodation cost and that it was never recorded on the respondent accounts; he replied that the accommodation monies were paid from the income accruing from an adjacent car park facility and the respondent had not wanted to be “stuck with the cost of BIK”. The complainant had raised the accommodation payment with the new owner in their conversation. The complainant said that any income above the rent cost was remitted to the respondent. He stated that he was paid €120 by direct debit on a weekly basis.

The complainant outlined that he had paid the deposit for the rented dwelling and the first two month’s rent. He last paid rent in July 2018, just before his dismissed. He left the apartment in September 2018 and lost the deposit.

The complainant said that after his employment came to an end, he looked for work, but was not now working. He had been devastated by what happened and was quite down. He has vast experience in managing sporting events. His previous experience was in retail and he had worked abroad.

The respondent denied that there was a dismissal and submitted that the complainant had agreed to end his employment. The new owner outlined that he has been involved in sport for years, in particular through underage sport. He was asked to get involved to save the respondent. He acquired a shareholding and carried out due diligence. He met the complainant, who said that if the new owner did not want him “here”, the complainant would leave. This was an amicable, evolving conversation and the new owner replied that the complainant was probably not in his plans. The new owner said that the complainant pointed to the correspondence regarding his accommodation costs.

The new owner outlined that they had mutually agreed that the complainant’s employment would end. He emailed the complainant that evening to confirm this. The following emails show a divergence between them. The new owner said that he emailed many times to offer to return the complainant’s possessions. The respondent paid the complainant two weeks of notice pay. The reference to matters being “tied up” referred to paying notice pay and the return of the vehicles. It was unclear what was going to happen with the accommodation.

The respondent outlined that the General Manager role remained vacant and this work is now done voluntarily. The accommodation expenditure had not appeared on the respondent accounts and the income from the neighbouring car park facility had also not been recorded in the accounts. The respondent outlined that it now received a higher income from the car park facility. It had confirmation from the other directors that the respondent had not authorised the payment of accommodation costs.

This is a complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act. The complainant’s employment ended on the 31st July 2018. He was paid two weeks of notice pay.

There is a conflict in evidence about what was said between the complainant and the Club Chairman on the 31st July 2018. They articulated their contrasting accounts of the conversation in the emails that followed. The complainant’s account was that he was dismissed on the spot while the new owner said that the complainant agreed to end his employment.

A resignation is a unilateral act which, if expressed in unambiguous and unconditional terms, brings a contract of employment to an end (see Shinkwin v Millett EED044). Given that this was a conversation that “evolved”, I find that anything said could not amount to an unambiguous and unconditional unilateral act to end the employment relationship. It follows that the respondent dismissed the complainant.

In assessing the fairness of the dismissal, I appreciate that it arose after the club’s change of ownership. I note that the complainant’s role is now carried out by volunteers, but there was no process at all to categorise the dismissal as a redundancy. I note that no other substantive reason was offered for the dismissal. It follows that the dismissal was unfair.

The most contested element of this case was how much the complainant earned per week, in particular whether his rent formed part of his pay. I find as fact that the complainant has presented insufficient evidence that the accommodation cost was part of his wages, or that the non-payment of these monies is a loss arising from his dismissal. In reaching this finding, I note that the complainant’s pay was €120 per week, while the accommodation cost was about twice this amount. One would expect much more documentation regarding a change which, in effect, tripled the complainant’s pay. I, therefore, assess redress according to the complainant’s wages of €120 per week.

The complainant’s employment commenced on the 21st December 2014 and came to an end on the 31st July 2018. The complainant did not provide much information about the steps he took to find alternative employment, i.e. to mitigate the financial loss arising from his dismissal. Taking the circumstances of the case into account, I award the complainant just and equitable redress of €980.

CA-00021245-001

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €980.

Unfair Dismissals Act

Shinkwin v Millett EED044 / resignation

Financial loss arising from the dismissal