FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : MPSTOR LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY BERNARD DUNLEAVY SC - INSTRUCTED BY LK SHIELDS SOLS) - AND - WILLIAM OPPERMANN (REPRESENTED BY TOM MALLON BL - INSTRUCTED BY NOBLE LAW SOLS) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s)ADJ-00020331 CA-00026511 Background The Complainant was employed from the 1stJanuary 2006 until the 18thJune 2018 when his contract of employment was terminated. The Complainant was paid three-months’ notice which he was not obliged to work, and his employment ended on the 18thSeptember 2018. At the time of dismissal, the Complainant was paid €150,000 gross. In 2015 the entire issued share capital in MPSTOR Limited was sold to Sanmina Corporation. The final agreement was executed on 22ndDecember 2015. MPSTOR at that point became a subsidiary of the parent company Sanmina Corporation. MPSTOR continued trading and the Complainant was offered the position of Vice-President of MPSTOR. At the commencement of the hearing the representative for the Respondent informed the Court that the correct name for the parent company is Sanmina Corporation and that they were not contesting the fact that the dismissal was unfair. He also informed the Court that should the Court award compensation the parent company were prepared to underwrite payment of the award. It was agreed by both parties that there were two issues before the Court 1) the identity of the correct employer and 2) the appropriate form of redress. It was agreed that this case and case UD/20/22 referenced above would be heard together. It was agreed with the parties that the Court would hear submissions on the issue of the correct employer first, then hear witness evidence and finally hear submissions on the three forms of redress available to the Court under the Acts. Summary of Respondent’s submission on the correct employer Sanmina saw MPSTOR as an attractive acquisition, as it had valuable intellectual property and a valuable client base. When a takeover of a company is by share acquisition the company then becomes embedded in the group as a wholly owned subsidiary. The fact that directions can come from the parent company to the subsidiary does not change the fact that they are separate legal entities. In this case Sanmina Corporation is the parent company and MPSTOR Limited is a subsidiary. It is the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant was always employed by MPSTOR Limited and that there is no difference between MPSTOR and MPSTOR Limited. The share acquisition did not change his employment status and he remained an employee of MPSTOR Limited albeit with a different title and improved contractual terms that were set out in the contract that he signed on the 28thDecember 2018. The Respondent does not accept that there is a difference between the use of MPSTOR and MPSTOR Limited in the contract and described it as “ a distinction without a difference”. The Complainant was in situ as Vice president of MPSTOR limited for two and a half years prior to his dismissal. He was in control of the operation of the business. The Complainant has not been able to produce a single document to show that MPSTOR is different to MPSTOR Limited. In respect to the emphasis being placed on the letter head on the correspondence he received it was the Respondent’s submission that letterhead branding is not indictive of who he is employed by. It is not unusual in a setup of this nature that the hiring and firing of senior employees would be done by the parent company, but the offer of work was clearly to work for MPSTOR Limited. The Respondent submitted that on the 28thDecember 2018, the week the Complainant sold his shareholding there was no reason why he would think that his employer could be anybody other than MPSTOR. He was a key employee of that company. The parent company wanted him where he was but on better terms and conditions. The new contract gave him better terms and he got a €200,000 signing on bonus. It is the Respondent’s submission that it is clear from his contract that he is working in the same place , same office with responsibility for the same employees. The Complainant’s salary was at all time paid by MPSTOR and this is clear from his payslips and the Revenue returns. It is not disputed that the parent company exercised a degree of oversight and looked to incentivise the Complainant in his performance by granting him equity in the parent company. The Respondent submitted that certain sections of the contract were cut and paste and do not necessarily sit comfortably in the contract. However, the Court will have to do a job of construction with the contract. The Respondent went on to point out what it believed were useful milestones in the contract. The reference to Code of Ethics references the parent company. In the restriction clause, Sanmina is referenced as the parent company. It is the Respondent’s submission that as the Complainant did not know any secrets from Sanmina there would be no point in binding him to same whereas, as he did know secrets from MPSTOR this is a key clause in identifying who the employer is. He negotiated the agreement qua vendor and as a key employee of MPSTOR. The arrangement did not contemplate that existing employees would leave MPSTOR and this is reflected in the warranty at para 6.1 of the Equity Call Option agreement which references the employees as all staying in situ. The value for Sanmina was that the employees came with the business. The Complainant was a key employee as identified in the agreement In the certain restriction clause of the contract the requirement in respect of the Complainant is clearly in respect of MPSTOR. MPSTOR while still trading is in effect moth-balled. Most of the staff were made redundant and the two that remain are working remotely on work that is not MPSTOR work. The Respondent does not accept that thecontra proferentemrule applies. This is not a construction against one party or the other. The Court is looking to identify the Employer so as it can fix a remedy against the right person. There is no obligation fixed on the Complainant in the contract therefore the issue ofcontra proferentemdoes not apply. In response to queries from the Court the Respondent advised that the bonus payable after six months was paid by MPSTOR. That the contract was signed by the Vice President of Human Resources for Sanmina Corporation and that the key employees identified in schedule six of the Equity Call option, did receive enhanced terms and conditions after the share purchase agreement. It was confirmed that there was no termination of the Complainant’s employment prior to the termination in June 2018. At the time of the share transfer no letter of termination or p45 was issued. The Respondent also confirmed that after the transfer the Complainant retained the right to hire and fire staff and that he was responsible for the day to day running of the business. Mr Alan Reid Executive VP Global Human Resource’s witness for the Respondent informed the Court that he had responsibility for all HR activities in all 56 countries and that he reported directly to the CEO of Sanmina Corporation. It was his evidence that the transaction was not an asset transfer it was a share purchase. At the time there were 10 employees who would have received enhanced benefits as a result of the share purchase. However, the expectations around the success of the product that MPSTOR offered did not materialise. In May 2019 they engaged with staff around redundancy and ended up with only three staff left. MPSTOR is still in existence and there are currently two employees employed by that company . None of the original coding or software is being used and there is no operative business for the Complainant to return to. There are significant trust issues between the parent company and the Complainant. The witness confirmed that after the share acquisition he became a Director of MPSTOR Limited and was involved and approved the decision to dismiss the Complainant. It was his evidence that a board meeting was not held to approve the decision to dismiss as there were only two Directors and he had the authority to make that decision. It was put to the witness in cross examination that he was suggesting that the Complainant should not be reinstated because of other cases the Complainant may be taking against the Respondent. The witness stated that he believed that it was one of the reasons why he should not be reinstated. The witness stated that while staff from the parent company may have assisted with some of the software issues MPSTOR was not a division of the parent company, it was a subsidiary company. The witness accepted that some of the clauses of the contract could be said to be ambiguous. Summary of Complainant’s submission on the correct employer. The Act defines an employee as “a person who is employed under a contract of employment” and works for remuneration. MPSTOR Limited is a company registered in Ireland, ‘MPSTOR’ is something different and that difference is relevant. Producing software is the business of the MPSTOR company. In 2015 Sanmina Corporation bought all the shares in MPSTOR Limited, at that time the Complainant held about 10% of the shares and he concluded an agreement with them in late December 2015 for the sale of his shares. A secondary agreement was entered into respect of the treatment and consideration payable by Sanmina to Mr Opperman under the equity option. By letter of 28thDecember 2018, he was offered the position of Vice President of MPSTOR which set out his employment was subject to the terms and conditions set out in the letter. In respect of the contract that he signed it was on the headed paper of Sanmina-sci with a Cork address and the position offered was with MPSTOR not MPSTOR Limited reporting to VP Newisy’s division of Sanmina Corporation. The representative for the Complainant opened the Complainant’s contract to the court and drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the contract does not define who the employer is and within the contract it refers to the employer and to the company but does not define either. It was his submission that the Court should apply thecontra proferentemrule and interpret the contract against the Respondent. The opening paragraph offers a position as VP of MPSTOR and this is repeated again in the next paragraph where it states you will serve as VP of MPSTOR. It was the Complainant’s submission that ‘MPSTOR’ is a brand and is different to MPSTOR Limited. The contract also made reference to the company’s Annual Operations Bonus Plan and this was in reference to Sanmina Corporation Bonus plan. There is also reference to Ethics and other policies which were Sanmina policies. The letter of dismissal that the Complainant received was on headed paper for Sanmina Ireland Unlimited Company and Samina Corporation California. The letter also referred to the Complainant as VP MPSTOR not VP MPSTOR Limited and was signed by Ms Tullet who is an employee of Sanmina Corporation. In relation to his dismissal, the Complainant was asked by Mr Fay an employee of Sanmina Corporation to join a conference call, while he was on the call Ms Tullet who is also an employee of Sanmina Corporation, walked into his office. The Complainant was told by Mr Fay that his contract was terminated and to hand over his keys and phone to Ms Tullet. The Complainant in his evidence to the Court gave the background to the share acquisition by Sanmina Corporation and explained that discussions had been ongoing between the parties, for a number of years prior to 2015. Ultimately, the share sale went through in 2016. It was the Complainant’s evidence that Sanmina asked him to identify key employees as they wanted key employees to remain after the share sale. He confirmed to the Court that he was a key employee and that the outgoing board had set up an escrow account to pay a bonus to employees that remained with MPSTOR for at least six months. It was the Complainants evidence that he was a key employee and that he did get the bonus after six months. On the 18thDecember 2015 he was approached by Mr Eugene Mc Cabe Sanmina Corporation who proposed a secondary agreement whereby the Complainant would leave part of his equity in the Company, which he did. It was the Complainant’s evidence that he received a new contract of employment which was dated 28thDecember 2018 and that all key employees signed new contracts at that time and received additional pay and benefits. The Complainant confirmed in his evidence that prior to the share sale he reported to the Board of MPSTOR and after the share sale, he reported to the VP of Newisy’s Division, Sanmina Corporation. It was the Complainant’s evidence that there were a number of additional duties in his new contract particularly related to cold storage and hardware standards which were relevant to Sanmina more so than the MPSTOR products. The contract also referred to a bonus scheme. It was his understanding that this was a Sanmina bonus as they set the targets to be achieved. It was the Complainant’s evidence that he did not receive any bonus under that scheme nor did any other employee of MPSTOR as far as he was aware. It was his evidence that the references in the contract to Code of Ethics, confidential information, hours of work holidays etc were all Sanmina terms. He drew the Courts attention to the last page of the contract which had a conditionality clause that the contract would only come into being if the sale of shares went through. It was his evidence that he believed that as MPSTOR Limited was now a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanmina, that he worked for Sanmina Corporation. The Complainant gave evidence that after Mr McCabe left Sanmina in January 2018 there was a restructuring of the Newisy’s Division of Sanmina Corporation. It was around this time that he first met Mr Fay who advised him of the restructuring. Following the restructuring from February 2018 he was less involved in the day to day running of MPSTOR and more focused on sales. On the morning of his dismissal 18thJune 2018, he opened an email and discovered that he had a meeting with Mr Fay that morning. When he joined the meeting, he was advised that a member of the Sanmina team Ms Tullet would be joining the meeting. He was told by Mr Fay that his contract was being terminated and he was asked to give his keys and fobs to Ms Tullet. When he asked why Mr Fay just kept repeating that his contract was being terminated and no reason for the termination was given. It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was seeking re-instatement and he did not believe there was any reason why he could not work with people in Sanmina Corporation. In terms of mitigating his loss it was his evidence that straight away he reached out to contacts to try and get work. He had some limited success but the nature of his expertise building up or rebuilding start-up companies meant that although he invested a lot of time and effort there was little financial reward at the early stages. However, in 2019 he started on a two-day week with Company B and that has now increased to three days a week paid employment, but the actual commitment is close to five days as he tries to get the company to a viable position. The representative of the Complainant submitted figures in terms of his income from that source from 2019 to date which subject to agreed amendments around the calculations reflected his earnings for that period. In cross examination the Complainant accepted that he had been paid three months pay in lieu of notice. He also accepted that he still had a contract with company A whereby he would get three percent of any sales he makes. At this point that has not generated income. However, it is possible in 2021 that it might generate between €10,000 /€15,000. In respect of Company B he confirmed that while the contract referenced a share option that had not happened yet but he expected it could materialise in three to six months. The Complainant confirmed there was a third company, company C but this had not generated any income. The representative for the Respondent took the Complainant through various sections of the contract that he had signed on the 2ndof January 2016. The Complainant did not dispute that he was named as a key employee in the body of the Equity Call Option document or that the contract offered him a position as Vice President of MPSTOR. The Complainant was asked to comment on clauses in the contract that referred to the parent company and who he thought that clause referred to. It was his evidence that he accepted that it could be read as referring to MPSTOR with Sanmina Corporation being the parent company. The Complainant was directed to P60’s and P35 and asked for his view on the fact that all returns to Revenue showed him as an employee of MPSTOR Ltd. The Complainant in response stated that his payslips and the P60 showed his employer as being Samina Ireland Monthly and that they were his employer. He accepted that even if P60 said employer was MPSTOR and the Revenue reference number related to MPSTOR and had not changed, it would not change his view that Sanmina was his employer. In response to a question from the representative of the Respondent, it was the Complainant’s evidence that he had not been in touch with anybody in the company since he left so he was not familiar with what was going on in the company currently. Three or four people on the sales side had reached out to him. The Complainant was asked if he was reinstated where would he be based and in what role. The Complainant stated that he would be based in Ireland in a sales role. It was put to the Complainant that this would require creating a new role that had never previously existed. He accepted that Sanmina do not currently have a sales role in Ireland, but he felt he could do European sales and be based in Ireland. It was his evidence that from March 2018 to June 2018 he worked in sales. When asked if the job he was previously doing still existed the Complainant confirmed that he did not know if it still existed. When it was put to the Complainant that he would have to go back as a Vice President he submitted that he could go back to sales. The Complainant’s evidence to the Court was that he would be happy to go back and then to be made redundant. In Response to a question from the Court the Complainant confirmed that at the time of the share sale his employment with MPSTOR had not been brought to an end. The Complainant also confirmed that if he was re-instated it would raise difficulties for him in respect of his current employment and the energy he had invested in same and he would have a difficult decision to make. In the course of re-examination, the Complainant confirmed that his boss was an employee of Sanmina Corporation, as far as he knew after the share sale MPSTOR did not have a bank account as there was no corporate finance function in MPSTOR it was all handled by Sanmina. MPSTOR was a cost centre. Summary of Complainant’s submission on redress. There are three forms of redress set out in section 7(1) of the Act. The Complainant is seeking re-instatement as the most appropriate form of redress. It was his evidence to the Court, that the job he was doing immediately prior to dismissal was in sales and business development. The Complainant submitted that, this is the role he is entitled to return to. While the Complainant noted the Respondent’s submission that MPSTOR is mothballed and that four of the original key employees were made redundant. The Respondent also confirmed that two employees still remain in employment albeit doing different work. The Complainant submitted that the Court had to take note of the fact that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed in a pre-planned way with no notice and this was not disputed by the Respondent. The Complainant’s representative directed the Court to the case ofReilly and Bank of Ireland[2015] IRHC 241 and in particular paragraph 65 where Noonan J held that “the Court has to grant the remedy which will do justice between the parties”. In the case to hand, there was no criticism of the employee in advance or at the time of dismissal. In those circumstances the Court had to look at the behaviour of the Respondent. In respect of the caselaw that the Court had drawn the party’s attention to the Complainant submitted as follows; In theRapple and Irish Newspapers(in Receivership and in Liquidation )UD841/95 case, although there was no actual job to return to, the Tribunal granted reinstatement as there was a possibility of a benefit accruing to the Complainant if he was in employment on a given date. In the within case the Complainant accepts that if he is re-instated, he may be made redundant and he will deal with that if and when it happens. It is the Complainant’s submission that the Court is not required to look around corners as to what the future holds when making it determinations. In respect ofKelly and FerenkaUD26/1977 it was the Complainant’s submission that in that case the organisation had closed but the Tribunal still ordered reinstatement to the date of closure. InFoley v Calview LtdUD1228 the Tribunal did not grant re-instatement based on the wrongdoing of the employee. However, that issue does not arise in this case. The facts of this case are that the Employer ignored the Act when it dismissed the Complainant and the allegations by the Respondent of loss of trust and confidence all relate to after the employment relationship had ended and should nor be considered by the Court. Summary of Respondent’s submission on redress The Respondent submitted that the remedy of reinstatement is burdened by two fundamental problems. 1) The general propositions that run through the caselaw are not to do with the employee’s acts, but actually the practicality of re-instatement particularly in circumstances of Senior Employees. 2) The reasonableness of ordering a re-instatement that is practical and workable. In this case, the Court must take into account the fact that there has been a genuine contraction of the business and the relevance of the senior position that the Complainant held in the company. The Court also needs to look at the practicality of the relationship going forward. The level of misunderstanding that arose around the contract demonstrates the difficulties in the relationship. The Court also needs to give consideration to the amount of time that has passed since the Complainant parted company with the Respondent. It is over two and a half years since the Complainant worked for the company. Mr Reid in his evidence stated that there is no active business for the Complainant to return to and that evidence was not challenged. In terms ofReilly and Bank of Irelandthe circumstances in that case were different as there were other people involved in the activity that led to the dismissal, but Mr Reilly was the only one dismissed. This caused reputational damage that could only be remedied by re-instatement. There is no reputational damage in this case. While the Respondent accepts that the manner in which the termination occurred was wrong it has not impacted on the Complainants reputation. The Respondent citiedState (Irish Pharmaceutical Union) and EAT(Supreme Court 1985 263/269)and the requirement to afford both parties the opportunity to make submissions on the issue of redress. It was the Respondent’s submission that none of the cases that the Court drew the party’s attention to are of assistance to the Complainant. In the case ofRapple and Irish Pressthe circumstances were unusual in that the issue of re-instatement was uncontested and therefore the Employer /Employee relationship did not have to be considered. It was in reality a paper exercise there was no requirement to create a job and the timelines were different. In theRapplecase there was only a few months between the dismissal and the case being heard and reinstatement meant he acquired eligibly to benefits that he would not get if he was awarded compensation. In the case ofGibney and RiversideUD732/87 the Tribunal ruled out the issue of reinstatement and decided to award compensation on the basis that it was “ ..quite clear that in view of the senior position which [the claimant] held and the confrontation which had taken place between himself and his former employers, his return to work would be impracticable.”It was the Respondent’s submission that the Court had to look at the fact that that the Complainant had held a senior position and the practicality of reinstatement taking into account all the circumstances of this case. In respect of theFerenkacase again the remedy of reinstatement was not contested and therefore issues around the practicability of the remedy do not arise. In that case reinstatement was a paper exercise to get the employee preferential treatment which would give the employee an entitlement that would flow from the status of being an employee at the relevant point in time. It was the Respondent’s submission that the Foley case was an outlier in terms of the remedy’s usually applied by the Tribunal. InFoley and CaleviewLimitedUD1228 the Tribunal did order re-instatement. The Tribunal stated: “The usual reason for substituting compensation instead of one of the primary remedies is the unwillingness of the Tribunal to force persons unwillingly into a relationship of employee and employer.” However, the Tribunal went on to note that “as in this case the claimant is a fifty percent shareholder and continues to be one of the Directors of the company this consideration lacks it usual force as the claimant effectively stands on both sides of the relationship of employer and employee.”The Respondent submitted that the facts of the Foley case were unusual, and no similarity existed with the Complainant’s case. The Law
Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, states, as follows:
The first issue that the Court needs to consider in this case is who the employer was. The Act defines the employer as the person who the employee has a contract of employment with. In this case it is being argued by the Complainant that the contract he has is with Sanmina Corporation, while the Respondent argues that the contract is with MPSTOR LTD. An issue was raised by the Complainant in respect of the use of ‘MPSTOR’ as opposed to MPSTOR LTD in the contract. It was suggested that they were not one and the same or interchangeable. The Respondent’s position on this issue was that it was a distinction without a difference. The Court finds on this issue that no evidence was provided to support the contention that ‘MPSTOR’ and MPSTOR LTD are not one and the same entity. On that basis the Court accepts the Respondent’s submission that it was a distinction without a difference and applied this to the Court’s reading of the contract. The starting point for the Court in determining the correct employer was to examine the documents pertaining to the Equity Share Option. The Court noted that the Complainant was one of a number of employees who Sanmina Corporation identified in that document as key employees who they wished to retain after the share transfer. The Court accepts that in some parts the contract does not flow well and when the paragraphs are read on an individual basis it can be unclear as to whether the reference is to MPSTOR LTD or Sanmina Corporation. However, when the contract is read as a whole, starting with the opening paragraph which offered the Complainant a position of Vice President of MPSTOR , the bonus paid after six months for remaining with MPSTOR which was paid by MPSTOR (as per the Complainant’s evidence), the references to the parent company and in some incidences the reference to Sanmina as the parent company, the Court finds that on the balance of probabilities the contract of employment was with MPSTOR LTD. This finding in respect of the contract is bolstered by the fact that the MPSTOR Ltd returns to Revenue list the Complainant as an employee and the Complainant’s evidence that there was no change to his employment status at the time of the share acquisition other than receiving a new contract with enhanced terms. Having determined that MPSTOR LTD are the employer the Court then had to consider the appropriate form of redress as the fact of the dismissal being unfair was not in dispute between the parties. The Court first looked at the primary remedies of reinstatement and reengagement. As set out above both parties made detailed submissions in respect of re-instatement and referenced numerous cases not all of which have been mentioned in this determination. The Court has reviewed all the caselaw submitted in coming to this determination. In this case the Respondent has expressed its total opposition on a number of grounds to re-instatement or re-engagement, a factor that was not present in theRappleorFerenkacases citied earlier. The Court notes that a thread running through the caselaw is the Court must consider the needs of the employer as well as the needs of the employee. The caselaw also highlights the importance of hearing both parties on this issue notwithstanding the fact that the Court has full discretion on the form of redress a set out in the Act it shall award. Other factors identified by the caselaw that need to be considered are the to the position that the employee held within the company i.e if they were in a senior position, the reluctance to compel an employer to continue a relationship, whether mutual trust still exists, and whether the remedy will do justice between the parties. The Court notes the Respondent’s submission in respect of the changes within the company including the fact that a number of employees were made redundant. The difficulty that would be encountered if they had to re-instate the Complainant as Vice-President of a Company that was no longer functioning and the fact that nearly three years have passed since his dismissal. The Court also notes that in this case the Complainant was unceremoniously dismissed by the Respondent and no reason was proffered at the time for the dismissal. In terms of an unfair dismissal as defined by the Act, it is hard to envisage a dismissal that could be more unfair. However, while the Complainant has indicated that he is seeking re-instatement he also in his evidence to the Court stated that he is currently invested in terms of the time he has committed in a new start -up company and if he was reinstated, he would have a difficult decision to make. It was not clear to the Court from his evidence if the Complainant would actually take up the position if the Court ordered reinstatement. The Complainant also told the Court that he was aware that if he was reinstated, he could be made redundant. The Court notes that the Tribunal has in the past reinstated employees to positions that no longer existed. However, in those cases it was a reinstatement on paper to enable the Employee to reap some benefit from his status of being employee at the time the employment ceased to exist. In this case there is no such benefit arising from his employment contract. While the Court notes the Complainant’s statement that he did not envisage any difficulties in working for the Respondent. It was clear to the Court from the evidence of the Complainant and the Respondent’s witness that there were tensions between the parties that would lead the Court to conclude that mutual trust may no longer exist. In respect of the remedy of re-engagement the parties’ submissions were the same as for reinstatement. The Court then went on to look at the third remedy compensation. The Court noted that there were no contributory factors on the part of the Complainant that it needed to consider. The issues to be considered are the Complainant’s loss and his efforts to mitigate same. The Representative for the Complainant submitted a statement of loss to the Court which was subject to agreed amendments which showed a monthly salary of €12,500 plus medical insurance of €242 a month. It was accepted by both parties that the loss to date of hearing is €12,500 plus €242 forthirty months giving a total loss of €382,260. The earnings following dismissal to date were €120,000. The Court heard evidence from the Complainant that in respect of his earnings with company B there was a possibility in the near future of a share option materialising. He also indicated that some earnings from Company A were expected to materialise in 2021. In relation to the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate his loss the Court was satisfied that the Complainant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate same. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and the evidence put before the Court determines in the circumstances of this case that the reinstatement or re-engagement of the Complainant is not a practical option. The Court instead takes the view that compensation is the appropriate redress and is the remedy that will do justice between the parties. Having assessed all of the information before it the Court considers that the Complainant has suffered considerable financial loss as a result of the wrong that he has suffered. The Court considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances of this case to award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €262,260 being the sum of €382,260 less €120,000 Determination The Court determines that this Respondent is the correct employer and that the Complainant’s complaint of unfair dismissed. is well founded. The Court orders the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €262,260. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is overturned. The Court so determines.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary. |
