Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dermot  Lynch

Murnev Limited Pita Pit Ireland

Representatives

Anthony Collier, Collier Law Solicitors

Conor White, Dillon Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00041805-001

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00041805-002

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00041805-003

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00041805-004

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00041805-005

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00041805-006

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00041805-007

05/01/2021

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

CA-00041805-008

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00041805-009

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00041805-010

05/01/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00041805-011

05/01/2021

The complainant commenced employment as a bookkeeper with the respondent on 20/10/2018.  He was laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic in late March 2020.  On 09/07/2020 the complainant was informed by the respondent that it was intended to terminate his employment by reason of redundancy.  This was confirmed in an e mail send on the same date.  His employment ended on 23/07/2020. He was paid €17.50 per hour and worked 24 hours per week.  The complainant submits that a genuine redundancy did not exist.  In addition, he submitted complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 05/01/2021 in relation to his holiday entitlement, terms and conditions, annual leave and notice pay.

The complainant’s representative provided a written submission.  The complainant worked for the respondent as a bookkeeper from 20/10/2018 until he was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 23/07/2020.  There are a number of complaints submitted on behalf of the complainant and these are summarised as follows:

CA-00041805-001:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977.  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

CA-00041805-002: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977.  When the complainant’s employment was terminated on 23/07/2020 he was due 21 days annual leave.  This leave incorporates the leave year as defined in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977, i.e., 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021.  This 21 days equates to 168 hours and at €17.50 the complainant was due €2,940.00

CA-00041805-003:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977.  The complainant was not compensated for three public holidays.  These are May, June and August 2020.  The complainant submits that he is due €420 in respect of his entitlements to these public holidays.

CA-00041805-004:  This is complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.  The complainant was not paid in lieu of notice.  He is entitled to two weeks’ pay.

CA-00041805-005:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977.  The complainant was not paid for outstanding leave when his employment was terminated.

CA-00041805-006:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.  It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that he was given sight of contract of employment and this was then taken away by the respondent.  He was not given a copy of this.  It was also submitted that the respondent is in sole possession of this contract and the failure to provide the complainant with a copy of this contract is in breach of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 which places an obligation on the employer to provide an employee a statement in writing which outlines the terms of the employee’s employment.  The complainant’s representative also submits that the failure to provide this information is a contributory factor to some of the other complaints submitted.

CA-00041805-007:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.  The complainant was laid off at the end of March 2020.  There was no term referred to in the complainant’s contract of employment which allowed it to implement a lay off.  In these circumstances this constitutes an amendment to the complainant’s terms and conditions and as there was no consultation or discussion with the complainant this is a clear breach of Section 5 of the Act.

CA-00041805-008:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.  The complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist.  There were no meetings held with the complainant prior to the redundancy.  He was not given any selection criteria and there was no consideration of alternatives to dismissal.  At no stage did the respondent arrange to meet with the complainant.  It was also submitted that the complainant was not given an opportunity to appeal the decision to dismiss him.

It was submitted that there was no genuine redundancy and the manner in which his employment was terminated was in breach of fair procedures and natural justice.  In that context his dismissal was unfair.  The complainant was further shocked when he discovered that the respondent had advertised for a position similar to his.  At no stage was he asked to consider or offered this role.  The complainant provided the hearing with screenshots of this advertisement.  In evidence the complainant said that the role advertised was very similar to his and confirmed that there was no aspect to the role that he could not undertake.

The complainant’s representative noted that the complainant was never provided with details of any procedure it would follow in the event that it proposed to terminate his employment.  The termination of his employment was carried out in breach of natural justice and fair procedures.  The lack of any meaningful consultation or discussion of alternatives was a key feature in this case.  In view of the facts submitted the complainant was unfairly dismissed under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.  He was not paid his notice pay and not paid his full entitlements.

The complainant relies upon Morris v Callan Tansey Solicitors (UD143/2014) and submit that there was no genuine redundancy.  Similar to the above case, there was no meaningful consultation or any discussion of alternative measures.

Details of the complainant’s loss of earnings due to this dismissal were also submitted to the hearing.  The complainant did not obtain alternative employment in mid-February 2021.

CA-00041805-009:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004:  The complainant was not paid in lieu of notice.  He is entitled to two weeks’ pay.  The respondent accepts that the complainant is entitled to this payment and confirmed at the hearing that this will be paid.

CA-00041805-010:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

CA-00041805-011:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

The respondent provided the hearing with a written submission and a further submission was received on the morning of the hearing.  The complainant was facilitated with a period of time to revert with a written response to that particular submission.

CA-00041805-001:  This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

CA-00041805-002:  The respondent submits that the complainant was due annual leave based on 8% of the hours worked.  Details of the method of calculation used by the respondent was provided to the hearing.  This resulted in the complainant due a total of €1,904 which was paid on 23/07/2020.  A copy of the complainant’s pay slip for that period was provided in evidence to confirm this payment.

CA-00041805-003:  It is the respondent’s position that public holidays were included in the complainant’s annual leave calculation and this was paid on 23/07/2020.

CA-00041805-004:  This is complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.  The complainant was not paid in lieu of notice.  He is entitled to two weeks’ pay.  The respondent accepts that the complainant is entitled to this payment and confirmed at the hearing that this will be paid.

CA-00041805-005:  It is the respondent’s position that the complainant was paid his holiday pay and submits that a copy of the complainant’s pay slip from 18/07/2020 confirms this.

CA-00041805-006:  The respondent accepts that the complainant’s contract of employment is missing, and they no longer hold a copy.  The respondent provided the hearing with a copy of an e-mail thread dated 04/03/2019 which indicated that the complainant acknowledged receipt of his original contract of employment. A copy of the respondent’s standard contract of employment was provided to the hearing.  The complainant’s role with the respondent included issuing new contracts of employment and the maintenance of employee records.  The complainant was provided with the contract of employment and raised no issues in relation to it.  It is submitted that he is taking advantage of the fact that the complainant’s file is missing.

CA-00041805-007:  The respondent accepts that the copy of the standard contract of employment makes no reference to a lay off and how this would be implemented.

CA-00041805-008:  The complainant was informed that he was to be made redundant on 09/07/2020.  It was made clear that the reason for the redundancy was entirely due to the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.  The respondent had faced unprecedented financial difficulties and the public health advice prevented consultations from being fully engaged with.  The complainant received his full entitlements.

CA-00041805-009: This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004:

CA-00041805-010: This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004: 

CA-00041805-011:  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004:

This was a difficult situation for both the complainant and the respondent.  The respondent was faced with a most serious financial situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent effect this had on his business.  He started his business in 2018 and with the advent of COVID-19 and subsequent lockdown he was struggling to get a bank overdraft and the business was short of cash.  He was faced with a situation where he had to cut costs to zero as there was no trade. About 20 of his staff were in receipt of Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP).  The complainant was aware of the position as he managed the payroll.

The complainant was laid off and then received a telephone call from the respondent that he intended to make his post redundant and confirmed this in an e-mail.  The complainant did not have any discussion or consultation in relation to this decision.  He was also in the unenviable position that his post was being made redundant, but he did not have the requisite service to qualify for statutory redundancy.  The decision of the respondent to advertise a similar position to his on the internet caused him further shock.

There are a number of complaints which require consideration.  At the outset it is clear that some of these complaints could have been resolved if there was constructive engagement between the parties when the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment was communicated to him.  The lack of records and notes of meetings made a substantial contribution to the number of complaints in this case.

I do not accept the respondent’s position that the complainant “is taking advantage” of the lack of documentation.  As the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy he is entitled to vindicate his rights under the relevant employment legislation that is designed to protect the rights of employees and which provides employers with a framework within which they must operate.

CA-00041805-001: Withdrawn at hearing

CA-00041805-002:  The complainant is seeking payment for 21 days annual leave and calculates that he is due a total of €2,940.00.  The respondent has calculated that the complainant was due a total of €2,604 and was already paid €700 of this leaving a balance of €1,904 and this was paid on 23/07/2020. The complainant’s pay slip for the period ending 18/07/2020 shows that the complainant was paid the sum of €1,904 as holiday pay.  I do not accept the complainant’s submission that the holiday pay payments, which total €700, made in fortnights 3,4,5, and 6 represent an unlawful or unauthorised payment under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  I find that the complainant is not due any additional holiday pay.

CA-00041805-003: The complaint submits that he is due €420 in respect of his entitlements to public holidays for the months of May, June and August 2020.  The respondent submits that public holidays were included in the complainant’s computation of annual leave and he was paid for all outstanding leave on 23/07/2020.

As the complainant was on lay off during this period he is still entitled to benefit for any public holidays that occur during the first 13 weeks of lay-off. He was on lay-off from 28/03/2020 and his employment was terminated on 23/07/2020.  This 13-week period ended on 27/06/2020.  Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of two public holidays (4th May and 1st June 2020) for this period.  The complainant is due the sum of €280 gross.

CA-00041805-004: The complainant was not paid in lieu of notice.  The respondent accepts that the complainant is entitled to this payment and confirmed at the hearing that this will be paid.  I find that the complainant is entitled to two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.  The complainant is due the sum of €840 gross.

CA-00041805-005: The complainant was not paid for outstanding leave when his employment was terminated.  It is the respondent’s position that the complainant was paid his holiday pay and submits that a copy of the complainant’s pay slip from 18/07/2020 confirms this. I find that the complainant was paid for all his outstanding annual leave.

CA-00041805-006:  I note that the respondent accepts that the complainant’s contract of employment is missing and that it is unable to provide any document which outlines the complaints terms and conditions of employment.  

The Law:

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, as amended (The Act) requires that an employer must provide his/her employee with a written statement of the particulars of the employee’s terms and conditions of employment.  The relevant law is outlined in section 3 of the Terms of Employment Act, as amended where the relevant sections provide as follows:

(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), an employer shall, not later than 5 days after the commencement of an employee’ s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’ s employment, that is to say: 

(a) the full names of the employer and the employee; 

(b) the address of the employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principal place of the relevant business of the employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act 2014); 

(c) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires; 

(d) the rate or method of calculation of the employee’s remuneration and the pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000; 

(e) the number of hours which the employer reasonably expects the employee to work — 

(i) per normal working day, and 

(ii) per normal working week.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 provides for further details to be given to an employee not later than two months after the commencement of the employee’s employment.

The Terms of Employment (information) Act, 1994 implements an EU directive and applies to all persons working under a contract of employment or apprenticeship (whether on a fulltime or part time basis).  The Act also provides that an employer must notify the employee of any changes in the particulars already detailed in the statement of terms.  It is clear that no such document is now available. 

As there is an onus on the respondent to provide a signed and dated copy of this document and to retain such a document for at least a year after the employment ends I find that there was a contravention of the Act during the relevant period.  In circumstances where I consider the complaint to be well founded, I may require a statement to be provided.  In addition, I am entitled to direct a payment of compensation up to the value of four weeks remuneration such that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.  Given the circumstances of this case there is no longer a requirement to provide the terms.  I am guided by the Labour Court in Morehampton Foods Ltd v Gibbons TED 18/2017, where the Court confirmed that a failure to comply with s.2 of the Act “constitutes a single contravention of the Act” and that it was not the case that every omission from a statement mandated by s.3 constituted a stand-alone infringement to which the statutory limit on compensation should be separately applied.  Having considered the evidence in this case I believe that the full compensatory limit under section 7(2) should be applied.  I therefore order that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €1,680 gross representing four week’s remuneration which I consider to be a just and equitable sum having regard to all the circumstances in this case.

CA-00041805-007: The complainant was laid off at the end of March 2020.  There was no term referred to in the complainant’s contract of employment which allowed it to implement a lay off.  In these circumstances this constitutes an amendment to the complainant’s terms and conditions and as there was no consultation or discussion with the complainant this is a clear breach of Section 5 of the Act.  The respondent accepts that the copy of the standard contract of employment makes no reference to a lay off and how this would be implemented. This complaint is well founded, and I have included this breach in my consideration of CA-00041805-006 above.

CA-00041805-008:  It is not disputed that the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 23/07/2020.   Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced and the respective submissions of the parties, it is clear that while the Complainant contends that there was no genuine redundancy, the Respondent submitted that the termination of the Complainant’s employment constituted a dismissal by reason of redundancy.

I have to consider the Complainant’s claim of unfair dismissal in the context of a redundancy scenario.

Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 states that:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act; to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Section 4 (3) (c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 further clarifies the situation in relation to redundancy by stating, inter alia, that:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, 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 ….. the redundancy of the employee…”

Section 6 (7) of the Act states as follows:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the Adjudication Officer, the Tribunal or the Circuit Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so –

(a)    To the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal…”

On the basis of the legal position as set out above, the dismissal of an employee is deemed not to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from redundancy.  Arising from this, the burden of proof rests with the respondent to establish, in the first place, that the dismissal was wholly connected to redundancy, and having done so, to justify the selection process whereby the employee in question was selected for redundancy. 

I accept that the Respondent is entitled to restructure its business model in order to maintain its position and particularly within the context of the fallout of COVID-19. 

There is a considerable amount of case law in relation to the reasonableness of the employer in relation to the fair and objective selection of employees for redundancy.  In Boucher v Irish Productivity Centre [1994 EL 205] the Tribunal enunciated the burden on an employer to: “establish that he acted fairly in the selection of each individual employee for redundancy and that, where assessments are clearly involved and used as a means of selection, that reasonable criteria are applied to all the employees concerned and that any selection for redundancy of the individual employee in the context of such criteria is fairly made.”

In the within case the redundancy proposed by the respondent would see the complainant’s role removed and as the evidence presented clearly indicated that this was a stand-alone role within the respondents structure. 

The function of the Adjudicator is to assess what a reasonable employer, in the respondent’s position and circumstances, might have done.  This is the standard by which the respondent’s actions must be judged against.  The Act places the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was fair.  As part of exercising this burden of proof the respondent needs to show that fair process and procedures were applied when conducting the disciplinary process.

S.I. No 146/2000 which is more commonly cited as the “Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures” sets out the basic procedure which a respondent should follow prior to dismissing an employee.  In simple terms these include; putting any allegations to the complainant in advance of a hearing, allowing the complainant the opportunity to properly defend himself at a hearing, permitting the appropriate right of representation and allowing an internal appeal of any decision to dismiss.  These are not complex principles and while this instant case does not relate to misconduct on the part of the complainant, the respondent is still obliged to adhere to the principles outlined.

While the respondent clearly had financial difficulties, which may have necessitated significant cost saving measures, the obligation to follow basic principles is not revoked in such circumstances.

In the matter of Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, Noonan J. approved the following extract:

“the correct test is: was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him?  If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair.  But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair.  It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably take a different view.”

Having regard to the foregoing points and the totality of the evidence as presented I find that the respondent has not provided any evidence that the dismissal by redundancy was substantially and procedurally fair. The respondent has not provided evidence of fair selection for redundancy.

I believe that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the complainant.  In the light of this conclusion I find that the dismissal of the complainant by reason of redundancy was unfair for the purposes of the Acts and the complainant’s claim is well-founded.  In relation to redress I believe that compensation is the appropriate redress in this case.

The Complainant also confirmed that he is seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. It is incumbent upon the Complainant to give plausible evidence on mitigation of loss. Details of the complainant’s loss were submitted.  Some evidence was also provided of the attempts to mitigate his loss in securing alternative employment.  These documents show that there were approximately 18 applications for employment in the seven-month period from 23rd July 2020 to 24th February 2021.

While he made some efforts to mitigate his loss I am not satisfied that he approached this with the resolve that is set out in the case of the Employment Appeals Tribunal v Continental Administration Co Ltd (UD858/199) where it stated:  “a claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work.  It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work.  The time that a claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.”  I accept that the Covid-19 pandemic creates difficulties in seeking employment, but I do not accept that it is a barrier to a complainant seeking to mitigate his loss.

Redress:

Mitigation of Loss:  Section 7 (2) of the Act deals with compensation and mitigation of loss.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to –

(a) the extent (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employer,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the said financial loss was attributable to an action, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employee,

(c) the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid,

(d) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved by the Minister,

(e) the extent any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, relation to the employee, with the said section 14, and

(f) the extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal …

(3) In this Section –

“financial loss” in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to [2014], or in relation to superannuation;

“remuneration” includes allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu or in addition to pay.”

 It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that he now has a continuing loss of €3.74 per hour and this equates to €523.60 per month.  It was also submitted on behalf of the complainant that he is also entitled to recover his losses of approximately €523.60 per month up to finding alternative employment and his continuing loss which equates to €8,377.60

Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 sets out the limitation of redress:

Section 7(1)(c) allows for compensation of financial loss:

“ (c) payment by the employer to the employee of such compensation (not exceeding in amount of 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) in respect of any financial loss incurred by him and attributable to the dismissal as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA-00041805-009: This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

CA-00041805-010:  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

CA-00041805-011:  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

CA-00041805-001: This complaint was withdrawn at hearing.

CA-00041805-002:  I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00041805-003:  I find that this complaint is well founded.  The complainant is entitled to the benefit of two public holidays (4th May and 1st June 2020) for this period.  The complainant is due the sum of €280 gross.

CA-00041805-004:  The respondent accepts that the complainant is entitled to this payment and confirmed at the hearing that this will be paid.  I order the respondent to pay the sum of two weeks pay in lieu of notice.  I find that this claim is well founded.   I find that the complainant is entitled to two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.  I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €840 gross.

CA-00041805-005:  I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00041805-006: I find this complaint is well founded and I order that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €1,680 gross representing four week’s remuneration.

CA-00041805-007:  I find that this complaint is well founded, and I have incorporated compensation for this breach in CA-00041805-06.

CA-00041805-008:  I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.  I award the complainant compensation in the sum of €16,700.

CA-00041805-009:  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

CA-00041805-010:  This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

CA-00041805-011:   This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041805-004.

Dismissal by redundancy.  Terms and conditions of employment.  Mitigation of loss