ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030610
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ronan Dunne | Mason Hayes and Curran LLP |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | self | Tom Mallon, BL, instructed by Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
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-00037085-001 | 14/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00037085-002 | 14/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00037085-003 | 14/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00037085-004 | 14/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00037085-005 | 14/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/01/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a Funds Solicitor with the respondent from 28/05/2018 until his dismissal on 17/03/2020. He was paid €4,286.40 nett per month. The complainant submitted a number of complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14/06/2020. At the hearing the complainant confirmed that the claim for constructive dismissal (CA00037085-002) was withdrawn. The claims for redundancy (CA-00037085-003, CA-000375085-004 and CA-00037085-005) were withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced employment on 28/05/2018 and specialised in funds and financial regulation. The complainant received a number of negative comments and conduct from some colleagues at the end of 2018. He raised the matter with his manager. An investigation was undertaken but the complainant was not happy with the outcome. The complainant felt that the conduct continued, and he also experienced a reduction in the amount of work he was allocated. He raised his concerns in relation to this. In October 2019 he was advised at a meeting that he should consider resigning. On 15/11/2019 he was issued with a termination letter and was advised that this was a final decision. He was given two months’ notice, and this was extended by a further two months. It is the complainant’s view that he was unfairly dismissed as no fair procedures were followed. The complainant provided a comprehensive submission to the WRC which outlined the legal grounds for his complaint. The complainant also provided details of his attempts to mitigate his loss, various courses he undertook and details of the employment he took up on 20/07/2020. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the complainant’s relationship with some of his former colleagues had broken down and were beyond repair. It is accepted that no procedure applied, and the respondent decided not to provide any evidence to defend the complaint of unfair dismissal. The respondent accepts that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The fact of dismissal in this case is not in dispute. The fact of the dismissal being unfair is also not in dispute. In such circumstances the Adjudicator had to consider the appropriate form of redress. I heard the views of both parties on this issue. The complainant indicated on his complaint form that his preferred options would be re-instatement, re-engagement and compensation. I heard the parties in relation to these options. The complainant submitted that there was no finding of misconduct against him and cited the positive performance review that were given to him. Equally there was no suggestion of incompetence or incapability in relation to this role with the respondent. In relation to compensation the complainant expressed the view that his research indicated that this was the most likely outcome of a WRC hearing, but he was reluctant to state this as his preferred option as he had no finding of misconduct or incompetence made against him. The complainant submitted that he was willing to work with anyone. The complainant also confirmed that he has a new role since 20/07/2020 and this is at a slightly higher salary that he was paid by the respondent. The respondent accepts that the complainant is entitled to a remedy and in that context they would strongly and totally object to re-instatement or re-engagement. The respondent also accepts that the complainant is entitled to be compensated for actual loss. The respondent noted the recent Labour Court case, MPSTOR Limited v William Opperman (UDD2133). In that case the Court noted that “re-instatement or re-engagement were not a practical option”. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the complainant was a competent solicitor and was not untrustworthy. The issue for the respondent was that other people would find it difficult to work with him. In that context compensation was the appropriate remedy. There is a considerable body of caselaw in relation to this issue. A central concept in that caselaw is that the needs of the employer and employee must be considered. Also, the views of both parties must be heard. Other factors under consideration include the position of the employee within the company, whether mutual trust is still present, and will the remedy do justice to both parties. The Adjudication officer has discretion in relation to the form of redress as provided for in the Act and this was acknowledged by both parties. Having assessed the submissions of the complainant, the representation put forward on behalf of the respondent and the circumstances of this case I have formed the view that the re-instatement or the re-engagement of the complainant is not a pragmatic option. It is my view that the appropriate form of redress, and one which will do justice to both parties, is compensation. Having reviewed the documentation in relation the complainant’s attempts to mitigate his loss, and which was not disputed by the respondent, I award the complainant the sum of €17,150. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed, and I order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation in the sum of €17,150 |
Dated: 3rd February 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal. Procedures. Compensation. |