Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gerard  Byrne

Divinity Tile And Bathrooms

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Peninsula

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-00051301-001

24/06/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a bathroom installer on 28 September 2020. The Complainant states that he was dismissed on 22 April 2022. The fact of dismissal is in dispute.

Evidence of the Complainant (under affirmation)

The Complainant submitted that he and his brother (also an employee of the Respondent), were called to an unscheduled meeting with the two Directors of the Respondent business, Mr Paul Bannon and Mr Damien Palmer, after close of business on Friday 22 April 2022. During that meeting he was advised by the Respondent that he was being suspended, effective immediately and indefinitely, without pay. The Complainant was advised that he was due 6.5 days annual leave and that would be paid at some point in the future. Mr Bannon explained to the Complainant the concept of first-in-last-out. The Complainant left the meeting believing that he had been dismissed from his employment.

After the meeting, the Respondent asked the Complainant to return the company vehicle on a later date. On 3 May 2022, when returning the company vehicle, Mr Palmer asked the Complainant to return his mobile phone.

The Complainant opened an email dated 3 May 2022 which he sent to Mr Palmer and Mr Bannon. In that email the Complainant described the meeting of 22 April 2022 and he wrote:

 “. . . we were shocked to be told we were being suspended effective immediately, indefinitely, and without pay. We were surprised by this as it came without warning, and as there were no previous disciplinary procedures initiated against us, either verbally or in writing . . . Therefore the reason we are writing this email to you is because we are seeking clarity in writing as to the exact position of our employment status as we are unsure and deeply concerned . . . . ”

After the Complainant sent that email, he realised that he had tools belonging to the Respondent in a lock-up for safe keeping and he gave these tools to a manager of the business who lived close by. The Complainant sent an email on 4 May 2022 to the Respondent to let him know the tools had been returned. In this email, the Complainant referred to his email of the previous day and reiterated his understanding that he had been dismissed.

On 5 May 2022 the Respondent emailed the Complainant to advise that there had been no suspension or disciplinary hearing, and that “we have decided to place you on lay-off”. The Complainant submitted that this email was an attempt on behalf of the Respondent to place them on lay-off from that date to cover up the mistake they made in dismissing him on 22 April 2022. The Complainant submitted: “they hadn’t looked for us for weeks. The word they used in the meeting was ‘suspended’ and now they have decided it’s a lay-off”.

The Complainant submitted that he subsequently came to understand that an employer cannot place an employee on lay-off without their agreement. The Complainant did not receive a contract of employment or a staff handbook, and there was no written provision to allow the Respondent to lay him off from work. The Complainant submitted: “I hadn’t given my consent to layoff so I believe I have been dismissed and dismissed unfairly”.

The Complainant opened an email dated 27 June 2022 which he sent to Mr Palmer and Mr Bannon. In this email the Complainant requested both Directors to refrain from contacting his father (who had previously worked for the Respondent). In this email the Complainant also wrote:

“If you wish to discuss some other matter with me then kindly email me at this address and I will consider what you have to say. I have contacted the WRC in relation to this matter”.

The Complainant opened an email dated 5 July 2022 address to him from Mr Palmer and Mr Bannon. In this email, the Respondent advised the Complainant that business had improved and that he should report for work on 6 July 2022. The Complainant stated that he did not report for work or respond to this email as he had been dismissed on 22 April 2022.

The Complainant opened correspondence from the Respondent dated 7 July 2022. In this letter the Respondent stated that the Complainant has been absent from work since 5 July 2022 and that the Respondent had tried to contact the Complainant on 30 June and 5 July 2022 without success, and that it was now treating the matter as a case of unauthorised absence. The Complainant opened two further letters from the Respondent dated 19 July 2022 and 3 August 2022. In these letters the Respondent refers to the Complainant’s continued unauthorised absence, the failure of the Complainant to contact the Respondent and that the Respondent would take disciplinary action to deal with the unauthorised absence.  In relation to these emails and letters from the Respondent, the Complainant submitted that the dates in the letters varied and did not make sense and added: “I think they realised now, having informed them that we were taking a case to the WRC that they have to back cover. They were now threatening disciplinary action to make it look like they had not dismissed me. They were trying to paint a picture that I was placed on lay-off . . . they were trying to cover their tracks . . and make everything look above board . . . .”

The Complainant submitted that he had no reason to respond to the emails or letters; to resume work in July 2022 when instructed by the Respondent; or to attend a disciplinary hearing in relation to unauthorised absence as he was not an employee of the Respondent. Instead, he had been dismissed on 22 April 2022.

The Complainant told the hearing that his father also worked for the Respondent. He was leaving the Respondent’s employment on 22 April 2022, having worked out his notice, and that the Complainant felt that there “may have been sour milk” because his father had decided to leave the employment of the Respondent, but that “he couldn’t read” the Respondent’s mind in that regard.

The Complainant stated he signed on for social welfare shortly after and looked for job in the locality as he had no vehicle. The Complainant submitted that he attended a ‘start your own business course’ then and has been engaged in starting a business. He issued the first invoice for work completed by the business only a couple of weeks ago.

In cross-examination in response to the question of how long he had been on job seeker’s allowance, the Complainant responded: “for as long as you are allowed to be on it”. The Complainant confirmed that he only looked for work “relatively closely” to where he lived as he had no vehicle. In response to the question of how many job applications he made, the Complainant replied: “probably to 5 companies in total”. The Complainant stated that he had not been invited for any interviews. In reply to the question of when he started his own business, the Complainant confirmed that it was “around September 2022”. The Complainant accepted that he did not look for work while setting up the business. It was put to the Complainant that his limited company was incorporated in June 2022. The Complainant responded: “yes maybe it was then”.

It was put to the Complainant that he was told in the meeting of 22 April 2022 that there was no work available and business was quiet. The Complainant responded: “yes, he did say that there was no work available” and the Complainant accepted that the Respondent confirmed this in writing on 5 May 2022. The Complainant accepted that Mr Palmer did not say in the meeting of 22 April 2022 that he was dismissed. The Complainant denied that the Respondent did not use the word ‘suspended’. In response to the question as to why he had not responded to any of the Respondent’s emails, the Complainant answered: “because I didn’t work for them”. It was put to the Complainant that his failure to engage with the Respondent was unreasonable in this regard.

Evidence of Mr Paul Bannon (under oath)

Mr Bannon submitted that in April 2022 there was a slowdown in business. The Respondent employed several fitters, including the Complainant. The Complainant was the last of two fitters to be employed by the Respondent (the other fitter being the Complainant’s brother).  On the morning of Friday 22 April 2022, several scheduled jobs were cancelled for the following weeks. Mr Bannon spoke with Mr Palmer and a decision was made to relieve some of the financial pressure on the business by laying off two fitters on a last-in first-out basis. After close of business on 22 April 2022, Mr Bannon and Mr Palmer met with the Complainant and his brother and communicated to them that there had been a downturn in business and that they would be temporarily laid off. Mr Bannon submitted that he gave no date for the duration of the lay-off, but that he hoped by summer business would pick up. Mr Bannon submitted that the decline in work related to a drop in the number of bathroom fitouts. This affected the work of the fitters and not warehouse or administration, and therefore no other staff were considered for lay-off.

On 3 May 2022 the Complainant emailed the Respondent looking for clarification as to whether they had been dismissed. Mr Bannon responded on 5 May 2022 to clarify that the Complainant had not been dismissed but that they were on lay-off. He confirmed that the Complainant had not been suspended and that there was no disciplinary issues as the Complainant had not been in breach of anything.

Mr Bannon submitted that he made several calls to the Complainant, but none of his calls were answered. He also called the Complainant’s father (an ex-employee). However, the Complainant emailed Mr Bannon and Mr Palmer on 27 June 2022 and directed them to stop contacting his father and that this constituted a breach of GDPR. Mr Bannon submitted that the purpose of his calls were to get the Complainant back to work as business has picked up and he needed fitters. The Complainant had been thoroughly trained by the Respondent and was competent in the work he performed.

In cross-examination Mr Bannon confirmed that he did not confirm the lay-off in writing on 22 April 2022. Mr Bannon added that he thought his communication at the meeting on 22 April 2022 was clear and that there was no need to confirm it in writing. However, he did confirm the lay-off in writing on 5 May 2022 when the Complainant sought clarification. Mr Bannon was asked “was it not the case that we also worked in the showroom?”, to which Mr Bannon responded “yes, but only when business was quiet. If there is fitting work to be done then that brings in money unlike working in the showroom”.  In reply to the question of whether the Respondent had hired another fitter after the 22 April 2022, Mr Bannon responded “No. Mr S was hired before you and is still in our employment”. Mr Bannon confirmed that no additional fitters were hired and the only recruitment of staff was in sales.

Evidence of Mr Damien Palmer (under oath)

Mr Palmer submitted that it was the policy of the company to issue contracts of employment to all staff. Mr Palmer submitted that he was present at the meeting on 22 April 2023. As business was quiet the Complainant had been working in the showroom for the week and a half prior to 22 April 2022 and a decision was made to lay-off two fitters on a last-in-first-out basis, however, he  did not confirm the lay-off in writing on 22 April 2023. Mr Palmer submitted that the staff member with responsibility for HR was on annual leave on 22 April 2022 and the following week. Mr Palmer stated that he is a plumber by trade and that HR is not his area of expertise. Mr Palmer submitted that he thought the meeting of 22 April 2022 was clear and amicable. Mr Palmer said Mr Bannon did the talking at the meeting but that he confirmed to the Complainant that the lay-off was effective immediately. Mr Palmer submitted that he asked the Complainant to return his mobile phone when he met him on 3 May 2023.

In cross-examination, it was put to Mr Palmer that he had not followed the correct procedure for laying off a staff member. In response Mr Palmer said that he was not aware of any procedure that had to be followed, and that he did his best at the meeting on 22 April 2022. Mr Palmer added that he wanted the Complainant and his brother back to work in July 2022: that the company had invested heavily in their training and that there was work for them. Mr Palmer confirmed to the hearing that there was no provision in the contract of employment regarding lay-off and no custom and practice of placing staff on lay-off.

In closing, the representative for the Respondent told the hearing that there had been no dismissal on 22 April 2022; that the Complainant made no effort to engage with the Respondent to sort out any confusion that had arisen and to get back to work; the Respondent has the right to lay-off an employee if there is a down turn in business; and that the Complainant did not do what was required of him to mitigate his loss. The representative for the Respondent directed the hearing to its legal submission regarding the test for ‘constructive’ dismissal and related case-law. 

Law

Unfair Dismissal

The Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977-2015 (“the Acts”) defines “dismissal” in relation to an employee as including the termination by the employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee.

Section 6(1) of the Acts provides:

“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 were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”.

Section 6(6) of the Acts provides:

“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 Labour Court in Parkboro Developments Ltd T/a Park Engineering v Mariusz Witkowski (UDD2338) noted:

“There can be no absolute rules about [sic] is, or is not, a dismissal and to a very large extent each case in which this point is argued requires to be determined on its own facts.”

Generally a person is dismissed when the employer informs the employee clearly and explicitly that the contract is at an end or if the circumstances leave no doubt that dismissal was intended or may reasonably be inferred as having been intended [Desmond Ryan, Redmond on Dismissal Law (3rd ed., Bloomsbury Professional, 2017) at 22.13].  Where ambiguous words are used, an objective test should be deployed to decide what was intended by the speaker (Devaney v DNT Distribution Company Ltd, UD 412/1993). In Devaney the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) stated:

“... where words are genuinely ambiguous what needs to be decided is what the speaker intended. Did the employer mean to bring the contract to an end? In answering this question, what needs to be considered is how a reasonable employee in all the circumstances would have understood the employer’s intention.”

In Claddagh Ring Limited T/a Claddagh Jewellers and Mr Nima Amjadi (UDD2223), the Labour Court concluded that the Respondent did, on the balance of probability, intend to dismiss the employee when his employment was suspended (the employer submitted that the employee had been placed on lay-off) as the right to suspend the employee was not provided for in the contract of employment and was not grounded in any provision of the Redundancies Payment Act 1967 with respect to the notification requirements for lay-off. In this case, the Respondent’s decision to suspend the employee was made at least one week prior to the date of suspension/lay-off without notice to the employee, and the meaning of the terminology employed by the Respondent was not explained to the employee at the time or at any time thereafter.

In Parkboro Developments the Labour Court stated that where dismissal was not intended, it is up to an employer “. . . to take immediate and comprehensive steps to assure the Complainant otherwise”.

Section 6(7) of the Acts provides:

“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 or the Labour 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, and (b) to 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 section 14 (1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) of section 7 (2) of this Act”.

Section 7(1) of the Acts provides:

“Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

(a) re-instatement by the employer of the employee in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal, or

(b) re-engagement by the employer of the employee either in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal or in a different position which would be reasonably suitable for him on such terms and conditions as are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

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

Section 7(2) provides:

“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 of by the Minister,

(e) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in 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.

Section 7(3) provides “within 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 1973, or in relation to superannuation”.

The extent of the efforts required to mitigate one’s loss was considered by the court in Synergy Security Solutions v Paul Dusa (UDD1911). In Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Limited (UD 858/1999), the EAT set out a reasonable standard test to be applied when assessing if the Complainant mitigated their loss:

‘‘A claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work ... The time that a claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather [is] to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss”.

An employee must not unreasonably restrict his or her search solely within a narrow discipline and physical area and must be open to finding work in a broader sphere and within reasonable distance.

As noted in Redmond on Dismissal Law, where it is reasonable for an employee to become self-employed straightaway or within a short time after dismissal, any fall in income is likely to be considered. In Cavanagh v Dunnes Stores Ltd (UD 820/1994) the EAT accepted that the Complainant’s decision to start his own business rather than to obtain a job “did not amount to a failure to mitigate his loss”.

Lay-off

For the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2022, lay-off is defined at s 11(1) as follows:

“Where an employee’s employment ceases by reason of his employer’s being unable to provide the work for which the employee was employed to do, and—

(a) it is reasonable in the circumstances for that employer to believe that the cessation of employment will not be permanent, and

(b) the employer gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the cessation, that cessation of employment shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as lay-off”.

If an employer wants a lay-off not to be considered a redundancy situation, it must comply with the requirements of s 11 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2022.

There is no definition of lay-off in the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

At common law unless there is an expressed or implied term providing for unpaid lay-off, an employee could treat the layoff as a dismissal (see Industrial Yarns Ltd v Greene and Arthur Manley [1984] ILRM 15; Lawe v Irish Country Meats Limited [1998] E.L.R. 266; and Breda Pickering v Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited [2006] 17 E.L.R. 65).  

In Claddagh Ring Limited T/a Claddagh Jewellers and Mr Nima Amjadi (UDD2223) the Labour Court cited the UK case of D&J McKenzie Ltd v Smith [1976] IRLR 345 in its decision. In D&J McKenzie Ltd the employee was told by the managing director that he was being suspended for two or three weeks due to a decline in business and that it might be the beginning of April before he was back at work. The Court of Session held that an employer is not entitled unilaterally to suspend an employee unless there is some provision express or implied in the contract of employment permitting him to do so, and accordingly, the suspension of the employee amounted to a dismissal for the purposes of Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and that the employee was entitled to a redundancy payment.

Findings

The fact of dismissal is in dispute in this case. It is the Complainant’s case that he was dismissed on 22 April 2022. It is the Respondent’s case that the Complainant was placed on lay-off on this date. The Complainant submitted that there was no express or implicit contractual provision permitting the Respondent to place him on lay-off without pay, nor had he agreed to same. At no time either within the narrative of the complaint form or during the hearing did the Complainant allege constructive dismissal. In fact, both in his oral testimony and in his written submission, the Complainant was at pains to say that he was dismissed on 22 April 2022, and that he had ‘at no time resigned’ from his employment or terminated his employment because of the conduct of his employer.

Where dismissal is in dispute, the initial burden rests with the Complainant to establish facts from which an Adjudication Officer can determine that a dismissal has occurred. I must decide whether the Complainant could reasonably and objectively understand himself to have been dismissed within the meaning of s 1(a) of the Acts as he alleges on 22 April 2022 and, relatedly, whether the Respondent intended to bring the contract of employment to an end by way of dismissal on that date. If I find that the Complainant was dismissed on 22 April 2022, I must then consider if there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

I find as fact, for the reasons set out below, that the Complainant was dismissed on 22 April 2022 when he was purportedly laid off.

It is the Complainant’s case that he was dismissed on 22 April 2022 following a meeting with two Directors of the business during which the Complainant submits he was told he was ‘suspended’, ‘indefinitely’, ‘without pay’, and ‘effective immediately’. It is the Respondent’s case that the Complainant was told he was being temporarily placed on lay-off. I prefer the evidence of the Complainant was he was told at the meeting of 22 April 2022 that he was being ‘suspended’, ‘indefinitely’, ‘without pay’, and ‘effective immediately’, and that the words ‘lay-off’ were not used by the Respondent until 5 May 2022.

It is common case that the Respondent contacted the Complainant on 29 April 2022 to ask him to return the company vehicle. On 3 May 2022 the Complainant returned the vehicle and was then asked to return the mobile phone. This prompted the Complainant to email the Respondent on 3 May 2022 (this email was opened by both parties at the hearing), in which he stated that the request for the mobile phone “took us by surprise as the company phones contained the software which would inform us of when work was available . . . [u]pon returning the phone we both felt that this meant we had been dismissed from our employment without notice”. The email continued: “[t]herefore, the reason we are writing this email to you is because we are seeking clarity in writing as to the exact position of our employment status as we are unsure and deeply concerned”.

It is common case that the Respondent replied by email on 5 May 2022 stating:

“. . . there is no suspension or disciplinary happening as you are not in breach of anything. The meeting that took place was merely a consultation meeting to explain to you the position the company is currently facing. After careful consideration, we have decided to place you on lay-off in  hopes that work will become available at some point during the summer. As you are aware, we are currently experiencing a downturn in customer orders and therefore, struggling financially. In circumstances where a company has a current shortage of work for its employees but does not expect this situation to continue, there may be an option to retain the workforce by placing them on lay off, where our contracts and employee handbook allow us to . . . ” (my emphasis).

While the Respondent took steps to assure the Complainant that there had not been a dismissal, this communication was as ambiguous and non-comprehensive as the meeting of 22 April 2022. It clearly shows that Respondent had only now decided to place the Complainant on lay-off, even though the Complainant had not been provided with work or pay since 22 April 2022. There was no effort again on behalf of the Respondent to obtain the consent of the Complainant to the lay-off.  Further, the email acknowledges that the Respondent was aware that an employee could only be placed on lay-off where the contract or handbook permitted same. It is common case that there was no express or implicit term permitting the Respondent to suspend the Complainant without pay on 22 April 2022 or to place him on unpaid lay-off on 5 May 2022. The lack of such a provision led the Labour Court in Claddagh Ring Limited T/a Claddagh Jewellers to find that the conduct of the employer undermined the central tenets of the contract of employment with the employee in that, without notice or notification, it ceased providing work and wages to the employee. The Court found that it was reasonable for the employee to believe that he had been unfairly dismissed. The Court also noted that the assertion to the employee that his employment was suspended was not grounded in any term of the contract of employment and was not grounded in any provision of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and the meaning of the terminology employed by the Respondent was not explained to the Complainant at the time or any time thereafter.

I accept the Complainant did not acknowledge the Respondent’s email of 5 May 2022 and thereafter steadfastly refused to engage with the Respondent, but this must be considered against the conduct of the Respondent, namely, the unilateral unpaid suspension of the Complainant on 22 April 2022 and unilateral unpaid layoff of the Complainant on 5 May 2022.

On 27 June 2022 the Complainant advised the Respondent that he had contacted the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). There then followed a request from the Respondent to the Complainant to return to work on 6 July 2022. Thereafter the Respondent sent letters advising the Complainant that he was absent from work since 5 July 2022, and further letters alleging that the Complainant was absent from work without authorisation and ultimately that the Respondent intended to deal with the absence as a disciplinary issue. I accept the submission of the Complainant that these letters were a disingenuous attempt to backtrack on a decision made on 22 April 2022 to dismiss the Complainant.

I conclude that the Complainant could reasonably and objectively understand himself to have been dismissed on 22 April 2022; that the Respondent did, on the balance of probability, intend to dismiss the Complainant on 22 April 2022; and that there were no substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. In those circumstances, by operation of the Acts at s 6(1), the dismissal of the Complainant on 22 April 2022 was unfair.

The Complainant has sought an award of compensation as the means of redress in this case.The Complainant is now the company Secretary and employee of a family business therefore I have not considered reengagement or reinstatement. I find compensation to be the most appropriate remedy. At the point of termination of employment the Complainant was earning €550 weekly.

I must evaluate the efforts made by the Complainant to mitigate his loss. The Complainant did not make sufficient efforts to mitigate his loss in May 2022, and therefore I award no compensation for this period. In June 2022 he attended a ‘Start your own business’ course and decided to set up a business with his father. The Complainant confirmed that he was not available for or looking for work after June 2022 as he devoted his time and energy to getting the business off the ground. At the time of the hearing the business was established and had begun to generate revenue. In my view six months is a reasonable period for getting a business of that kind up and running (especially with the assistance of two other persons) and for the Complainant to get into a position to earn an amount equivalent to that earned with the Respondent. Taking all the facts into consideration, I award €14,300 which I find is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

I decide that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, and that the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant compensation of €14,300 which is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

Dismissal in dispute.