Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Manager

A Machinery Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00027836-001

17/04/2019

The complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.

The respondent detailed that he had no alternative but to let the complainant go as he owed a debt to his wife as part of law proceedings and that he operates as a sole trader.

He submitted that he had no choice and that he is an uneducated person around the law and that he had apologised to the complainant for what had happened.

The respondent detailed that he did not have discussions with the complainant in advance of his decision.

The complainant commenced employment on 2nd January 2018 and was dismissed on 9th April 2019.

On 8th April 2019 the complainant met with the respondent to discuss work plans for the business which included future plans for banner advertising. Later that afternoon the complainant was asked by the respondent if the work was completed and was told not to proceed with it. Later that evening the respondent came into the complainant’s office and said “I have bad news for you, you are let go”. The respondent told the complainant he had to pay a large sum of money to his wife as part of family law proceedings and had no choice but to let her go. The complainant asked the respondent could she return the following day for her belongings and he replied that she could. The respondent said that he thought the complainant would tell him to f**k off and she replied she would never say that to her employer. The following morning the complainant collected her belongings and the respondent said “sorry about that, that’s the way it is”.

The complainant outlined that she secured temporary employment in June 2019.

The respondent detailed that he had no alternative but to terminate the employment of the complainant as he had to pay his wife a large sum of money. The complainant detailed she was let go with no consultation or discussion and that the laws of natural justice did not apply to her termination.

Section 4 of the legislation sets out :

“the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

( a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

( b) the conduct of the employee,

( c) the redundancy of the employee, and

( d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.”

Section 6 details that

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

The respondent detailed he had a large debt to pay and had to let the complainant go. No evidence was provided in relation to such a debt or that the only alternative available to the respondent was to terminate the employment of the complainant. The respondent did not have any discussions with the complainant and indeed a few hours before he terminated the complainant’s employment, the respondent had been discussing future plans for the business. The respondent did not utilise expected procedures or apply the laws of natural justice in relation to the termination of the complainant. I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Having considered the remedies available I have decided that reinstatement or re-engagement of the Complainant is not a practical option in this case and that compensation is the appropriate redress in this case. With regards to mitigation of loss, I note the complainant secured temporary employment approximately 9 weeks after her termination.

I find the complainant was unfairly dismissed and I find it is just and equitable in all the circumstances to order the respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €2,500.

I find the complainant was unfairly dismissed and I find it is just and equitable in all the circumstances to order the respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €2,500.  

Unfair dismissal