Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Carmel  Maher

Munster Forklift & Training Services Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

David Gaffney, Gaffney Solicitors

David Pearson J W O'Donovan LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00044483-001

04/06/2021

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

CA-00044483-002

04/06/2021

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

CA-00044483-003

04/06/2021

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

CA-00044483-004

04/06/2021

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

CA-00044483-005 WITHDRAWN

04/06/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 26 November 2012 and was on  a salary of €50,000 at the date of her dismissal on 27 January 2021, when she held the post of General Manager. She was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for allegedly wrongly having personal benefit of company assets by way of  a delivery of kerosene oil to her home and of availing of taxis and personal groceries for her own use, at the Respondent’s expense.

The Complainant denies any wrongdoing and submits that the use of assets and personal services were with the express permission of management at the time and, furthermore, that the procedures adopted by the Respondent in dismissing were fundamentally flawed, contrary to  the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, (“the 1977 Act”)

The Complainant submits that she did not receive her minimum notice under  the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”).

The Complainant submits that she did  not receive a statement  of her terms of employment under the Terms of Employment (information) Act (“1994 Act”)

The Complainant submits that she did not receive her full statutory annual leave entitlements upon cessation of her employment contrary to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”).

The Respondent denies the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and submits there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the Complainant, which the Respondent asserts, took place only after a rigorous independent investigation, disciplinary and appeal process.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not entitled to minimum notice under the 1973 Act because she was summarily dismissed and maintains that the Complainant received her annual leave and terms of employment in line with both the 1997 and 1994 Acts respectively.

The Respondent commenced trading on or about 1st October 2019 and at that time took over the business and assets previously owned by Munster Forktruck Limited. At that time of transfer the entire issued share capital of both Munster Forktruck Ltd and Munster Forklift Training & Services Ltd was owned by Mr. Noel Keohane. The Complainant was a Director and Secretary of both Companies, employed by both Companies and transferred her employment from Munster Forktruck Limited to Munster Forklift and Training Services Limited with effect from the transfer date of 1st October 2019.

The transfer between these two Companies was in anticipation of the sale of the entire issued share capital of Munster Forklift and Training Services Limited to a third-party Company, Amalac Group Limited owned jointly by Mr.  Alan Crosbie and Ms. Chara Nagle.

The acquisition of the entire issued share capital of Munster Forklift and Training Services Limited by Amalac Group Ltd completed on or about the 13th of December 2019. From that date the sole Directors of the Respondent Company were Alan Crosbie and Chara Nagle and both Noel Keohane and the Complainant remained as employees of the Company, but neither retained Director status.

On 26 December 2019 Alan Crosbie discovered that in excess of €214,317.00 had been removed from the Company bank account on 20 December 2019, the day after the completion of the sale of the Company. Mr. Crosbie asked his accountants Roberts Nathan to embark on an initial investigation. Arising from the initial investigation the Company decided that it was necessary to suspend both Mr. Noel Keohane and the Complainant from their employment with the Company on full pay from 23 March 2020. (It later emerged that the Complainant was not accused of any wrongdoing regarding the amount of money that was reported as missing from the company's account.)

Allegations of wrongfully having company assets and availing of services for personal benefit were investigated by an external accountant, Mr. John Byrne, CHK Partnership. A Disciplinary Hearing was conducted by Ms. Sarah Daly, BL.  The Complainant did not attend the disciplinary hearing. The Complainant was dismissed by way of letter from Mr. Alan Crosbie on 27 January 2021.

The Complainant appealed the decision to summarily dismiss her for gross misconduct. The appeals process was carried out by Ms. Niamh McGowan BL. The Complainant co-operated with the appeals process and attended two meetings with Ms. McGowan, accompanied by her solicitor. Ms. McGowan also interviewed Mr. Noel Keohane, Mr. David Pearson, Company Solicitor, Mr. Alan Crosbie and Ms. Sarah Daly BL. A stenographer attended all interviews and transcripts of the witness statements were supplied to the Complainant. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the dismissal was affirmed by Ms. McGowan.    

I was provided with copious correspondence between the parties as well all the relevant reports emanating from the Disciplinary and Appeals procedures.

Mr Peter Roberts, of Nathan Roberts Accountants, gave evidence of being engaged by Mr . Alan Crosbie to carry out a  due diligence review before the purchase of the  company by Amalac Group  Ltd. He described how he received a call from Mr Crosbie in relation to the movement of a substantial sum of money from his now purchased company over the 2019 Christmas period. He said Mr Crosbie was in  a panic and was fearful that the company was about to collapse. He suggested a root and branch review of the finances, which was carried out, and it was found that two accounts did not form part of the completion accounts. These accounts were in relation to the receipts for taxis, groceries and kerosene. He could not reconcile them to be legitimate company expenses.

Mr Alan Crosbie, Managing Director, gave evidence how he discovered that a   substantial sum in excess of €214,317.00 had been missing from the Company accounts in December 2019 . He had to call an emergency meeting to keep the company afloat. As all single transactions were examined  by the accountants, more transactions came to light which were  not in the completion accounts. He said he made a decision to suspend Mr Keohane and the Complainant in March 2020. He  observed    the Complainant regularly parked up  in a jeep on an  adjoining premises owned by Mr Keohane during her suspension period. He believed she was taking notes of happenings at the Respondent business.  He testified to writing a  letter of 21 May to the Complainant with the allegations as alluded to above. He had decided to initiate an investigation around the concerns raised by his accountants and appointed Mr John Byrne , accountant from CHK Partnership, whom he did not know prior to appointment, to carry out an investigation. The Report of Mr Byrne was exhibited in evidence. This report stated that a prima facie case for disciplinary action had been established and that a disciplinary hearing was warranted. 

Mr Crosbie delegated the disciplinary hearing to be carried out by Ms. Sarah Daly BL,  and because she is a lawyer and recognised workplace investigator, he felt she would be totally objective. He referred to  both Ms Daly’s report and his dismissal letter based on Ms Daly’s when explaining his decision to summarily dismiss the Complainant for gross misconduct.

In cross-examination the witness accepted that a ten-month suspension period was a relatively long time, but he stated that the delay could in large part be attributed to the Covid-19 lockdown and the associated delays that resulted from the difficulties that period threw up. The witness rejected that there was a pre-determined outcome but accepted that though Ms Daly carried out the disciplinary hearing, it was he who actually dismissed the Complainant.

Mr John Byrne, Accountant, gave an account of the investigation. He said that the  Complainant was accompanied by her solicitor at all stages but that minutes of the meetings were ultimately never agreed. He issued a written report on the allegations and determined that a case for disciplinary action,  on the face of it, was established on three allegations that he investigated, as follows:

1.       The Complainant wrongly had assets of the company,  kerosene oil, delivered to the Complainant’s home address.

2.        The Complainant charged the company for household groceries for personal consumption.

3.       The Complainant charged the company for personal taxis.

In cross-examination the witness said he knew the Respondent’s accountant Mr Peter Roberts on a professional basis, but he had no close links to him.

Ms Sarah Daly BL carried out the disciplinary process and gave evidence on the process. The witness declared she had no prior professional or personal connection to the Respondent company   A letter was sent  to the Complainant on 27 October 2020  outlining the allegations and as well as a copy of the terms of reference where it stated, amongst other things, that Ms Daly was delegated to conduct the disciplinary hearing  to make a  decision.  The hearing was to be held online due to Covid restrictions and Ms Daly emailed the Complainant on 28 October 2020 to connect to a hearing  on 3 November 2020 via “Zoom”.  The Complainant went sick before the hearing and was declared  fit to return to work on 5 January 2021. The Complainant was advised of a second date for a disciplinary meeting on 20 January 2021, but sought an adjournment and a third  date was fixed for 25 January 2021.  The Complainant did not acknowledge the communication. The witness stated  that she was informed by the Respondent’s solicitor that the Complainant had contacted him through her solicitor to inform the Respondent that she did not have a camera for her computer therefore she was not available to take part in an online hearing. The witness detailed her multiple efforts to contact the Complainant, yet no response was received. The witness was of the belief that the Complainant was seeking to avoid the disciplinary hearing. The Complainant was warned that paragraph  4.2 of the Terms of Reference made provision for the witness to issue a report where there was non-cooperation from the Complainant. The witness issued her report on 27 January 2021 finding that the allegations against the Complainant were upheld and that they were sufficiently serious to merit summary dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct.

SUBMISSION

CA-00044483-001 UNFAIR DISMISSAL

The Respondent submits that the conduct of the Complainant amounted to gross misconduct and that it is well established in law that a tribunal does not substitute its own decision for that of an employer but must instead establish whether a  decision to dismiss was a reasonable and proportionate response by an employer based on the information available to that employer, at the time. The Respondent submits  that the dismissal was justified and found to have been an appropriate and justified response to the behaviour and conduct of the Complainant as measured by two experienced barristers operating in the area of employment law.

The Respondent submits that its procedures were at all times in accordance the principles of natural justice and went further than most companies of a similar size would ordinarily allow. The allegations were fully investigated initially  by  an independent accountant and though the Complainant did not plainly cooperate with the disciplinary procedure, her appeal in essence became a de novo hearing where witnesses were interviewed, and a stenographer recorded all meetings. There were appointed independent third parties to deal with everything and the Complainant was allowed legal representation at every juncture through the process of establishing facts, evaluation, and conclusion. 

CA-00044483-002 – MINIMUM NOTICE

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not entitled to payment of minimum notice under the 1973 Act in circumstances where the Claimant was summarily dismissed from her employment with effect from the 27th of January 2021. Summary Dismissal is the lawful dismissal of an employee without notice or pay in lieu of notice.

CA-00044483-003 – TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT

 The Respondent submits that the Complainant was provided with a written statement of the terms of her employment under the 1994 Act.

 CA-00044483-004 – ANNUAL LEAVE

The Respondent denies the Complainant's claim for annual leave and submits that the Complainant has not quantified her claim. The Respondent submits the Complainant has taken significantly more annual leave than she was due, or entitled to, over a full annual leave year. The Complainant has taken 10.18 days annual leave to which she was not entitled, and which had not accrued.

The Respondent asserts the Complainant took annual leave and additionally with effect from 15 January 2020 unilaterally decided not to work on Fridays. She also unilaterally decided to finish work at 4.00pm on Monday - Thursday inclusive instead of 5.30pm, thereby taking 1.5 hours as annual leave each day.    

I took a comprehensive note of the evidence and submissions, and they are cited as appropriate in the findings and reasoning section of this decision.

Mr Gary Buchan, personal accountant to Mr Noel Keohane, referred to the completion accounts associated with the sale of Mr Keohane’s business to Amalac Group Ltd. He referred to two exhibited letters where reference was made to expenditure of Directors to the amount of €40,442 and it was his belief that such a communication  would have been an effectual  notice to the Respondent’s accountants that expenditure on the items at issue today, were understood as accounted for in the completion  accounts.

The witness acknowledged in  cross-examination that the correspondence he was relying on was of a fractious nature and that ultimately the completion accounts, as referred to in the correspondence ,  were never agreed.

Mr Noel Keohane, former managing director of the original company company, gave evidence that he gave full permission to  the Complainant to purchase kerosene, groceries, and  taxis for the use of the company.  He further stated that he had told Mr Crosbie of this position. It was put to the witness that he did not refer to Mr Crosbie knowing this  at any stage during the investigative process, and that Mr Crosbie gave evidence that he was never told of the transactions. Furthermore,  it was put to the witness  that this fact was never put to Mr Crosbie in cross-examination.  The witness  repeated that he had told Mr Crosbie of the transactions and the reasons for them.

The Complainant gave evidence that she had 25 years’ experience with the company where she was in charge of forklift training, invoicing, and accounts. She was a Director of the company prior to its sale at the end of 2019 when she remained as an employee after the transaction. She described being suspended summarily by Mr Crosbie on 20 March 2020 when both Mr Keohane and herself were “marched out the corridor”. She said she believed the only issue at that stage was the €214,000 transferred to Mr Keohane’s account.

The Complainant explained that Mr Keohane had given her a voucher for kerosene as part of a regular end of year bonus. She exhibited a letter/invoice which she procured after her suspension which she claimed shows that she had a voucher of which was redeemed by the delivery driver of the kerosene. She stated that the taxis were to facilitate clients and the practice was that she was always the last to be dropped off at her home address. The groceries were for the use of the company.

The witness explained that she could not take part in the disciplinary process with Ms Sarah Daly because she had not the use of a camera on her personal computer during the Covid-19 pandemic. She had two sessions with Ms Niamh McGowan BL as part of the appeals process.

The Complainant stated that  she received a contract of employment setting out terms of employment , a number of days before her suspension but she refused to sign the contract. The Complainant also gave evidence that she did not receive her compliment of holiday entitlement when  her contract was terminated.

On mitigation of loss the Complainant exhibited numerous job applications, each of which were unsuccessful, and she attributes this to her age.

The Complainant accepted in cross-examination that she was experienced in the way of the business and the duties of a director. It was put  to the Complainant that the voucher transaction  was never disclosed to the Respondent, nor in the investigation. The Complainant accepted that it was not raised in the investigation nor at the appeal level. When pressed on the matter as to why she did not engage with Ms Daly in the disciplinary process, the Complainant stated that she “was afraid” of Ms Daly because she felt nervous engaging with a barrister. The Complainant accepted that she had legal representation throughout the process.

SUBMISSION:

 CA-00044483-001 UNFAIR DISMISSAL

The Complainant submits that she received a letter from the then solicitors on 26 March  2020,   accusing her of unauthorized transfer of €214,309 from the company account. The solicitors  demanded an explanation and repayment within seven days, threatening legal action. Subsequent letters from the Respondent  altered the allegations. The Complainant asserts  the  internal investigation led by an independent accountant, John Byrne, was initiated, but the process was clearly inconsistent  . No copies of a draft report were received, and the final document deleted any reference to Mr Keohane’s evidence giving permission to the Complainant to purchase the disputed goods and services. The Complainant’s argues that that Mr   Byrne's final report, received by the Complainant  in July 2020, lacked  transparency and was a result of prejudgement of the Complainant’s case.  The subsequent disciplinary hearing chaired by Sarah Daly BL, was questioned by the Complainant for  its fairness and again pre-determined nature. The Complainant also asserts  that her unique circumstance of not having a computer camera, was not reasonably accommodated. The Complainant submits that extra allegations were introduced at the behest of Mr Crosbie. The dismissal is contested as fundamentally flawed, highlighting a lack of true independence and procedural irregularities. The Appeal, conducted by Niamh McGowan BL , was criticised by the Complainant for  exceeding its remit.

In closing, the Complainant’s solicitor submitted that the impetuous  manner of Mr Crosbie in “frogmarching” the Complainant out the door on the day of her suspension was a reaction to what subsequently transpired was a false allegation of being involved in the removal of €214,000 from the company’s bank account. Mr Gaffney also referred to the inordinate amount of   time of it took the Respondent to carry out its investigations when the Complainant was more than 10 months on suspension. He contended, that this action of itself by the Respondent was unjust and reasonable.

CA-00044483-003 – TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT

Under the  Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Complainant submits she  did not receive a Minimum Statement of her Terms and Conditions of her Employment within 2 months of the commencement of her Employment. The identity of the Respondent did not change when Mr Crosbie purchased the shares in such Company, and it took in excess of 2 months for the Respondent to furnish the Claimant with proposed new Terms and Conditions of Employment in writing in breach of the above legislation.

CA-00044483-004 – ANNUAL LEAVE

In relation to the Organisation of Working Time Act  the Complainant submits that the Respondent paid the Complainant her agreed monthly salary during the period of her suspension contrary to what is alleged in the Respondent’s Submission.  The Complainant contends she  is therefore  entitled to her accrued and unpaid annual leave entitlements.  

I took a comprehensive note of the evidence and submissions, and they are cited as appropriate in the findings and reasoning section of this decision.

CA-00044483-001 UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Relevant Legislation

 Section 6(1) of the  Act 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(4) of the UD Act provides:

"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 one or more of the following:…

(b) the conduct of the employee…"

Section 6(7) of the 1977 Act 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) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act."

 In O’Riordan v Great Southern Hotels UD1469/2003, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has provided a set of guiding principles that an Adjudication Officer must follow when determining whether the respondent reasonably concluded that the complainant was guilty of an Act of gross misconduct:

“In cases of gross misconduct, the function of the Tribunal is not to determine the innocence or guilt of the person accused of wrongdoing. The test for the Tribunal in such cases is whether the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds arising from a fair investigation that the employee was guilty of the alleged wrongdoing”.

The High Court has further echoed and reinforced this line of reasoning  in Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, in which Noonan J remarked:

"Section 6(7) makes clear that the court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct in relation to the dismissal. That is however not to say that the court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgment as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer. The question rather is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned."

It clearly is not my role to determine whether the Complainant was guilty of the accusations  laid against her but instead to determine  whether the decision by the Respondent to dismiss her was reasonable and proportionate, based on the information available to it  at the material time, and, furthermore,  that proper, fair  and impartial procedures were adopted  by the Respondent when carrying out the dismissal. 

The  assessment by Ms Sarah Daly BL  of the Complainant's behaviour, deemed it to encompass misappropriation of Company assets, attempted fraud or defrauding of the company, and unauthorised possession of the Respondent's property. Furthermore, the characterisation of the Complainant's actions as a notably severe breach of trust and deliberate acts on her part are framed in the context where Ms Daly noted that  the Complainant was an ex-Director and Company Secretary, as well as holding  a very responsible position at the relevant time. 

 Ms Niamh McGowan BL, affirmed the seriousness of the conduct, agreeing with Ms Daly's characterisation of misappropriation of Company assets and deliberate breach of trust. The sanction of summary dismissal was deemed appropriate and justified by Ms McGowan.  

Mr Crosbie gave convincing evidence of the seriousness of the Complainant's conduct, and how it  substantially eroded the trust and confidence that the Respondent had in the Complainant when carrying out future duties.   

The Complainant raised the issue of flawed procedures. The Complainant, amongst other things,  pointed to the unsatisfactory long time period the Complainant was on suspension, and argued that there was  an element of predetermination with the processes adopted by  both Mr Byrne and Ms Daly. Both the Accountant, John Byrne, and Ms Sarah Daly BL  gave evidence of being independent from the company and  gave evidence that they were not   influenced by  the Respondent. 

It would be unfair to solely attribute all the delay to the Respondent. The Complainant took sick leave for a considerable period  and the evidence showed that she initially ignored numerous requests to attend the disciplinary hearings. The Complainant gave evidence that she was “afraid” of Ms Daly because she was a barrister and that was the main reason she did not engage with the process, though she was legally represented at all times. This seems to contradict her primary  original reason for non-attendance  given to the Respondent which was that she had no separate camera for her computer (the process was online during the  Covid pandemic). The Complainant maintained her belief in evidence  that she consistently operated under the explicit authorisation of the former Director, Mr. Keohane. Furthermore, she categorically refutes any allegations of illicitly diverting company assets. Thus, I deemed her reasons for  not attending throughout the disciplinary process,  where she had the chance to further  proclaim her innocence in the matter, to be unpersuasive.    

It's important to note that procedural flaws alone do not automatically make a dismissal unfair, and the soundness of an employer's procedural approach may take a back seat to the substantive merits of a particular case. Significantly in this case, I find that any purported  flaws  were difficult to discern, they were  technical and minor in nature,  and could not be construed as severe enough to jeopardise the process.

Having reviewed  all the  evidence and submission in this case I am satisfied that the investigation, disciplinary and appeals processes were in-depth and independent at all times and way and beyond the norm that any relatively small business would be expected to employ. They were  conducted by  experienced and unbiased professionals, who  gathered evidence, interviewed relevant parties, and considered all available information. Throughout the investigation, the Complainant and her legal representative were  given ample opportunity to present their  side of the story, and their responses in the procedures where they engaged, were duly considered in the final determination. The determination of the process was that a significant breach of trust and confidence occurred. This determination  led the respondent to reasonably believe that the behaviour of the complainant constituted gross misconduct. Therefore, I deem the decision to dismiss as rational and proportionate and falling within the spectrum of reasonable actions expected from an employer, consistent with the guidance from the High Court in Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v James Reilly. Consequently, I find no unfairness in the dismissal of the Complainant.

CA-00044483-002 – MINIMUM NOTICE

Having found that the Complainant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, I find that the complaint was not well founded under the 1973 Act.

CA-00044483-003 – TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 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 Complainant gave evidence that she received a contract of employment in March 2020, before her suspension, which   outlined her terms of employment, but she returned it unsigned as she did not agree with the terms. It has been established in evidence that the Complainant was in continuous employment since 2012.  The Complainant did not lodge a complaint after the  two months requirement period at the time, nor at any time before the transfer of ownership.   However,  it is now established in law  that a claim subsists up until termination of employment if no terms have been received during the period of employment. However, I am satisfied that the contract as described contained terms as required under the 1994 Act. Section 3 of the 1994 Act does not require agreement on terms of employment but is concerned with receipt of terms only.  Therefore, I find that the complaint was not well founded.

CA-00044483-004 – ANNUAL LEAVE

The Respondent argued that the Complainant had begun to take Fridays off which constituted 10 days annual leave to which she was not entitled, and which had not accrued. The Respondent asserted the Complainant took annual leave and additionally with effect from 15 January 2020 unilaterally decided not to work on Fridays. She also unilaterally decided to finish work at 4.00pm on Monday - Thursday inclusive instead of 5.30pm, thereby taking 1.5 hours as annual leave each day. The Respondent acknowledged that it had no records to sustain this argument, contrary to section 25 of the 1997 Act.

I am satisfied that when the Complainant was suspended with full pay,  she still accrued holidays during that period . The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 27 January 2021.

In  Tapastreet Ltd & Joseph Mitchell Labour Court Determination DWT176  the Labour Court found that the entitlement of the employee to annual leave was statutorily limited to that arising from April 1st in the year on which any WRC claim was submitted, stating “any contravention of the Act arising from the Respondent’s failure to pay the Complainant in respect of outstanding annual leaveon the cessation of his employment accrued within the period, i.e., from 1st April to 16th October 2015. In so far as the complaint relates to the Respondent's failure to pay the Complainant in respect of annual leave taken on dates prior to those dates, it is statute-barred, and to that extent, it is not cognisable by the Court”. I find therefore that the cognisable period for the Complainant under the Act is from 1 April 2020 to 27 January 2021. The outstanding annual leave entitlement for the contested period  is 9.3 days.

I find that the claim is well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory  sum of €1800 which I consider to be just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances.

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.

CA-00044483-001 UNFAIR DISMISSAL – For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA-00044483-002 – MINIMUM NOTICE – For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was not well founded.

CA-00044483-003 – TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT – For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was not well founded.

CA-00044483-004 – ANNUAL LEAVE – For the reasons outlined above, I find that the complaint was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum of €1,800 for not receiving her proper annual leave payment on cessation of her employment.

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, Gross Misconduct, Fair Procedures, Minimum Notice, Terms of Employment (information) Act 1994, Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, Annual Leave.