Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jagmohan Singh

Northside Travellers Support Clg (T/A Travact) Travact

Representatives

Eoin Morris B.L. instructed by Crushell & Co Solicitors

Caroline Doyle B.L. instructed by E. P. Daly & Company Solcitors

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-00060643-001

20/12/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00060643-002

20/12/2023

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

CA-00060643-003

20/12/2023

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

CA-00060643-004

20/12/2023

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

CA-00060643-006

20/12/2023

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

CA-00060643-007

20/12/2023

The respondent is run by a voluntary board of management and also has a number of employees. It has robust policies and procedures including on bullying and harassment, discrimination, and health and safety. The respondent further operates a Complaints and Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure.

The complainant joined the charity in 2015 as a manager on a full-time basis and was paid a gross monthly salary of €3,965.50. His duties involved overseeing the work of a number of employees,  responsibility for certain financial and pay-related matters. As the manager, he had responsibility for approving annual leave and holiday pay. Although payroll was operated via an external provider, he had full oversight of pay slips approval for employees.

OnNovember 29th adetailed complaint of bullying was receivedby Board of Management (BoM) from a staff member, MW against the complainant. Following receipt of that complaint, in December 2022, the BoM convened a meeting to discuss the matter and a decision was made tocarryoutaformalinvestigationintothecomplaint.

The complainant was notified that the external investigator would be in contact with him and on January 30th, 2023, he had invited him to an investigation meeting and given supporting documentation. On January 31st,  the complainant refused to engage in the investigation until a 2018 grievance submitted by him had been dealt with and he referred to "a pattern of emails/submissions/proposals being ignored by board over the past year." He repeated this in February.

On February 2nd, 2023, the BoM received a further complaint of bullying against the complainant from a different staff member, MC. and a second investigation into this additional complaint was initiated and the parties notified.

On February 7th, 2023, the complainant restated his refusal to engage with the investigation into the MW complaint as he had not received any response from the BoM on the process adopted for the external investigation. Further attempts to persuade the complainant to cooperate with the investigation were not successful.

The investigation report subsequently issued on March 1st  2023 and of the eight specific instances of bullying alleged by MW, six were upheld.

On receipt of the investigation report, a decision was made to initiate disciplinary procedures against the complainant. However, he went on a period of sick leave between the 13th and 27th March 2023, and efforts to convene a disciplinary meeting were stalled for this period. Over the course of the following months, he returned to work sporadically, with further periods on sick leave. Each time the Board attempted to set down a date for his disciplinary meeting, he would go out on sick leave.

On September 30th, 2023, a Board meeting was convened to discuss the two bullying complaints which had been lodged against the respondent. At this meeting, a decision was taken to dismiss the complainant as he had not provided a date for his return to work to engage with the disciplinary process. This was communicated to his solicitor on  October 2nd, 2023.

Evidence

Mr. Tom Daly gave evidence on oath. He stated that he was a volunteer director of the respondent and confirmed the detail set out above about the respondent ‘s activities.

He stated that the respondent did not have any mandatory retirement age and noted that the complainant’s previous role in financial management had been changed by the appointment of a Financial Controller in 2017.

In respect of staff complaints this would normally be dealt with by the Manager except of course where he was a party. The 2018 complaint against the Chair by the complainant had been fully investigated and the matter had been concluded.

When complaints arose against the complainant in 2022 and in order to ensure that all parties were treated fairly an external investigator was appointed. However,r the complainant notified the investigator that he would not cooperate with the investigation unless his grievance about the 2018 complaint was included and he did not do so.

The witness spoke to the complainant about his non-attendance at the investigation and this was the reason he gave.  When the investigation was completed, the witness said he instructed the external HR company which had carries out the investigation  to initiate a disciplinary process.

Again, in the course of several telephone calls with the complainant it was made clear that he would not cooperate with this either until the 2018 issue was dealt with.

The witness stated that the reason the complainant was suspended was the uncertainty about his return to work.

Adjudicator note. Developments at, and following the Hearing.

In the course of the hearing on  April 16th, 2023, the parties reached agreement on a number of matters.  The Respondent, for example, conceded that, in principle the termination of the complainant’s employment on the 2nd October 2023 was unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 (as amended). The parties were invited to provide submissions on the redress point for the Adjudicator’s consideration.

Further submission of Respondent

The respondent conceded that, in principle the termination of the complainant’s employment on the 2nd October 2023 was unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 (as amended).

We also conceded the complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, that the complainant did not receive payment in lieu of notice  on the termination of his employment.

The parties agreed that the complainant was entitled to a figure €3,660.46 in respect of this breach.

The complainant formally withdrew his entire complaint of discrimination under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and his complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to an alleged outstanding pension entitlement.

The parties were asked to provide submissions on the Complainant’s complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to holiday pay.

In relation to redress, reinstatement is simply not available in circumstances where the relationship between the parties has completely broken down.

If compensation to be the most appropriate form of redress, significant regard should be had to the following matters outlined in Section 7(2) of the Act:-

…In determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to -

(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,

…

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

The Complainant’s conduct in relation to his refusal to cooperate with the investigations into the complaints made against him under the Dignity at Work policy

He was asked to attend for interview and refused to do so in relation to a legitimate investigation required under its policy in relation to a bullying complainant made against him by a staff member.

On 12th January 2023, the Complainant sent an email to Mr. Daly setting out the following:-

-        That his 4year-old pending complaint of bullying against Paddy McDonagh as the Board Chair, was still not resolved.

-        That the complaint had already been pre-judged as a serious complaint by the committee which was chaired by Paddy McDonagh against whom his complaint of bullying was still pending.

-        That he wanted a meeting with the Board to discuss it further before initiation of proceedings with the external consultant.

On 31st January 2023, the Complainant sent a further email to Mr. Daly noting that he considered the process of organising an external investigation as grossly unfair due to the reasons outlined in my email of 12 Jan 2023. The Complainant, in no uncertain terms, stated as follows:- You are again requested to address all the above issues before proceeding any further with the external investigation against me.

In February 2023, significant efforts were made by the external investigator to confirm a date for interview with the Complainant in respect of Ms Ward’s complaint against him. However, the Complainant refused to attend for any of the 3 scheduled interviews (1st, 9th and 10th February 2023), citing certain internal issues for which he was still awaiting a response.

In the interests of fairness to Ms Ward, and in particular her entitlement to have the matter adequately dealt with, the investigation proceeded in the Complainant’s absence and the report subsequently issued on 1st March 2023.

In Paragraph 1 of the report, it is noted as follows:-

The Book of Complaint and Response was sent to (MW) and (JS) on the 27th February 2023 and both were asked to submit final commentary by 28th February 2023. (MW) submitted final commentary via email on the 27th February 2023, (JS) did not submit any final commentary.

In the concluding section of the report, the following points were noted:-

The investigation has concluded that the allegations upheld amount to bullying as outlined in the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work 2021 therefore (JS) has a further case to answer for.

The investigation also finds that the complaint was made in good faith and was not vexatious or malicious.

Following the investigation into the first  bullying complaint by MW, the complainant went on sick leave. By his own evidence, he commenced sick leave on the 27th February 2023, returning 27th March 2023. He then commenced a further period of sick leave on 16th June 2023.

On 30th September 2023, the Board convened a meeting to discuss the position. The minutes of the meeting outlined as follows:-

JM has been taking regular sick leave since 27th of February when he took two week sick leave, four weeks again in June, JM has been in out  of work, he is never in when the investigation hearings are planned. He was placed on leave and asked to stay out until he was well enough to attend a hearing. He is now saying that does not have a date when he might be fit to return to work.

For that reason, as he does not appear to be able to commit to a date to return to work, he will be dismissed from next Monday.

The Complainant was ultimately dismissed on  October 2nd, 2023.

In 2018 a full and thorough investigation took place in relation to the complainant’s then complaint. It included numerous interviews with him and the respondent in the matter  and a lengthy report subsequently issued in July 2018 which recommended the parties shake hands and move on, or alternatively engage in mediation. No further action was sought or taken by either party following on from the issuing of the report and recommendations.

So it cannot be disputed that the 2018 matter had fully concluded in July 2018 when the investigation report issued and the parties agreed to put the matter behind them. He was not entitled to rely on his allegation that his four year old pending complaint of bullying had not been dealt with as a basis to refuse to participate in the bullying investigation against him in 2023.

His refusal to participate in the investigation into MW’s bullying complaint against him, was entirely unreasonable. From there he went on multiple periods of sick leave, culminating in his dismissal on 2nd October 2023. The WRC has a discretion in its award of compensation, and can deduct a percentage contribution if the employee has contributed to their dismissal and/or loss. The Respondent submits that the Adjudicator should consider the complainant’s own conduct, as set out in the above terms, as significantly contributing to his dismissal and/or loss.

In Jacinta Doyle v River Island Clothing (ADJ-00029939), the Adjudicator determined that the Complainant had significantly contributed to her dismissal by failing to avail of the opportunity to appeal a decision of her employer in relation to redundancy. The Adjudicator found that her refusal was “very detrimental” to her own position. As such, he awarded her €1,000 noting that “the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds but with a very significant complainant counterweight.”

In A Senior Receptionist v A Boutique Hotel (ADJ-00016679), the Adjudicator took account of the actions of the Complainant in the period of time leading up to his dismissal in reducing his award for unfair dismissal by 25%. In particular, the Adjudicator considered that his “actions and intimidatory behaviour” towards a female member of staff warranted the reduction in question.

The complainant’s evidence is that he has not secured alternative employment since his dismissal. Attributing this to his age ‘probably.” He gave further evidence that he had “joined recruitment agencies” and had submitted “almost 30 applications.”

The following case law illustrates that the standard required of a complainant to mitigate his loss is a high one.

In the Labour Court case of Cityjet v Gil (UDD215), the complainant told the Court about the financial losses he incurred because of his dismissal. However, he was not able to produce any evidence to substantiate those losses or demonstrate efforts he adopted to mitigate his losses. Amongst other things, he contended that his inaction to apply for suitable alternative jobs was because of health challenges. As there was no evidence to support his losses, the Court reduced his WRC award from €6,000 to just under €1,800.

A more significant compensatory award reduction can be seen in the Labour Court case of McGuire Haulage Limited v O’Farrell (UDD2324). Here, the Labour Court held that subsequent efforts made by an employee to mitigate his losses were inadequate where the efforts were “infrequent and largely informal rather than structured in nature” and limited “to a very restricted geographical area”. As such, the Labour Court reduced the initial WRC award by €50,000 to reflect a more just and equitable amount.

In N Smith & Sons Ltd t/a Ford Smiths of Drogheda v Ragelis (UDD2332), the Complainant alleged he had applied for “seventeen jobs” and had spoken “by telephone with six contacts in an eight-month period.” However, the Labour Court considered the efforts exerted by the employee fell “very far short of the obligation placed by the Act”. While the Court agreed with the WRC that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, it held that no compensation was payable in this instance, thereby varying the €2,000 compensation originally awarded to zero.

The above cases very clearly illustrate that the standard expected of employees in mitigating their loss is a high one. It is not enough for the individual to inform agencies that they are available to work. It is respectfully submitted that to meet the bar and convince a deciding body that sufficient efforts have been made, documentary evidence of the attempts to mitigate the loss must be provided. It is submitted that the Complainant wholly failed to put before the WRC any documentary proof of efforts made to mitigate his loss and this should be taken into consideration when considering the level of compensation available to him.

Regarding the complainant’s claim for holiday pay his monthly pay as per his pay slip was €3,965.50. His daily pay was therefore

€183.02 (€3,965.50 x 12= €47,586 divided by 52 = €915.12 divided by 5 = €183.02).

As the complainant, as the manager, had been in sole charge of employee annual leave at the time of his dismissal, the respondent is hampered in its ability to prove that he took any annual leave in 2023. It should be noted that despite repeated requests, he has failed to provide the Respondent with the necessary passwords to access this information.

That being the case, the Complainant has submitted that he is entitled to nine months of annual leave, being 25 days divided by 12 months multiplied by 9 months, which is 18.75 days. This would exact to annual leave entitlement of €3,431.63.

By contrast, the Respondent submits that having regard to the cognisable period under the 1991 Act, annual leave should be capped at the 12.5 days only, which would give him an entitlement to €2,287.79. The Respondent relies on the case of HSE v McDermott [2014] IEHC 331, in respect of the cognisable period.

The complainant says that his employment was terminated without due process, fair procedure or right of reply, importantly while he was on sick leave.

(A number of the complaints, including under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998,  were withdrawn in the course of the hearing)

He says that he did not receive any notice in writing of the termination of his employment and that he did not receive all of his rights during the notice period in that he did not receive notice pay of €1,006

He was not paid his annual leave entitlement, which was due on October 2nd, 2023, in the amount of €5,033 and that he did not receive the contractual contribution towards his pension of €896 as due for September 2023, ordinarily received on 02 October 2023.

He made a number of formal and informal attempts to find alternative employment. He registered with a number of recruitment agencies and made 12 applications for alternative roles, to mitigate his loss. He has not advanced to interview for any of these roles.

The total loss of earnings between the termination date and adjudication date was €32715 based on the calculations of his overall salary.

In recent years the BoM has pressurised him to retire on the basis of his age, despite not having any disciplinary, performance or health issue throughout the course of his employment.

In February 2018, the complainant had raised a complaint against the Chair, alleging workplace bullying. However, this complaint was not dealt with adequately despite repeated attempts to bring it to the attention of the board. The only action taken was appointing another Director of the board to be a liaison between the complainant and the Chair, who was advised to no longer interact with the complainant directly.

The pressure on him to retire commenced due to his raising concerns over questions about the respondent’s cooperate governance structure and his salary, which had remained stagnant for the previous  eight years of his service. Instead of addressing these issues, he was overloaded with additional work assignments without any additional compensation.

This was further demonstrated by a refusal in writing to reconsider his salary.

He was approached three times by Mr. Daly, asking him to outline a plan for vacating his post, despite making it clear at all times that he had no intention of resignation. Since his refusal to resign, the complainant says that the respondent has adopted a hostile approach to force him out. This is demonstrated by three “sham” investigations being brought against him, without following any processes as laid out in the respondent’s policies.

He repeatedly requested meetings with the respondent to discuss the investigations but was ignored and says that the respondent was encouraging colleagues to file false complaints against him, in an attempt to create more investigations. He raised a written grievance on  March 23rd, 2023  (detail provided) including on his own renumeration and how it had not been increased since his commencement of the position in 2015.

He says that the process in which an external investigation was initiated against him was unfair and that his role as Manager was being micromanaged and undermined by the members of the board and that on two occasions, the board had organised an open forum where other staff members were encouraged to air their complaints against him.

He went on sick leave due to work related stress, during which, on  July 11th, 2023, he received a phone call informing him that he had been suspended with pay, refusing to provide reasons. On July 13th, 2023, he received a further phone call, requesting that he hand over his keys and relinquish passwords for the office computers. He agreed to do so the following day.

When the complainant arrived at his office on July 14th, 2023, allthelockshadbeenchanged and that same day heengagedasolicitorin response to his suspension.

On  September 14th, 2023, the Complainant informed the respondent  that he would be returning to work in early October 2023. However, on  October 2nd, 2023, he received a phone call informing him that he had been dismissed. No reason was given, and Mr. Daly refused to answer the complainant’s questions.

He later learned that the reason for his dismissal was that the date of his return from sick leave was unknown. However, this was contrary to the fact that he has informed Mr. Daly of his return date on September 14th,  2023, a month prior to his dismissal.

The complainant outlined these concerns in an email to Mr. Daly on 12 October 2023, which can be seen on page 41 of the booklet of supporting documents. Mr. Daly responded to the Complainant on 13 October 2023 and advised the Complainant to cease communication with him and contact his solicitor instead. This can be seen on page 43 of the booklet of supporting documents.

The Complainant immediately contacted the other Board Directors and informed them that this dismissal was decided under false pretenses and provided a certificate of fitness to demonstrate that he was able to return to work. However, the Complainant did not receive any response.

He then made a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20 December 2023.

The complainant submitted a further submission after the hearing on a range of matters including his claim for reinstatement, his claim for annual leave payment in the amount of €3431.63 and also a request for the reimbursement of his legal expenses.

In the course of the hearing on April 16th, 2023, there was some progress in relation to the complaints to be addressed. The parties reached agreement on a number of matters. 

The respondent conceded that, in principle, the termination of the complainant’s employment on the 2nd October 2023 was unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 (as amended).

The parties were invited to provide submissions on redress, and both parties did so and the respondent‘s post hearing submission is summarised above, and reference is made to the relevant parts of the complainant’s submission also. (Much of it was a quite extraordinary attempt to re-litigate matters fully addressed at the hearing; it even included a demand for the re-imbursement of his legal expenses. WRC Adjudicators have no powers to determine costs).

The respondent also conceded the complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, that the complainant did not receive payment in lieu of notice  on the termination of his employment.

The parties agreed that the complainant was entitled to a figure €3,660.46 in respect of this breach.

The complainant formally withdrew his complaint of discrimination under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and his complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to an alleged outstanding pension entitlement.

The parties were asked to provide submissions on the complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to holiday pay.

The most significant issue to be determined therefore is redress, and if that were to be compensation, the level of  such compensation to be awarded to the complainant for his losses attributable to the unfair termination of his employment.

Given the circumstances of the relationship between the parties, which was bad enough in the period leading up to the events giving rise to the complaints being referred to the WRC, and is likely to have deteriorated further since, I consider that the option of re-instatement or re-engagement is not realistic, and therefore I proceed to consider the issue of compensation as the correct form of redress.

For the convenience of the reader, I set out again the sections of the Unfair Dismissal’s Act which sets out some of the factors to be considered in relation to any award of compensation, and requires that regard should be had to the following outlined in Section 7(2) of the Act:-

…In determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to -

(d)   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,

…

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

…

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

The  complainant states his total loss of earnings between the termination date and date of the hearing as €32,715 based on the calculations of his overall salary. His gross salary was €3,965 per month. His losses therefore are equivalent to about eight months’ salary.

Looking first at the manner in which his employment was terminated it is clear from the submissions that there was a total absence of any the recognisable features of a fair procedure. The evidence indicates that the respondent simply lost patience with the complainant and decided to terminate his employment without further ado.  And it was accepted by the respondent at the hearing that the dismissal was unfair.

The issue that arises under section (7) (2) (d) above is whether the financial loss was attributable to an action, omission or conduct by the complainant.

Interestingly, while any financial loss which follows a dismissal is inevitably a direct consequence of that dismissal the statute does not say that or make that the determining consideration; viz whether the actual dismissal was attributable to ‘an action, omission or conduct by the employee’.

Rather it clearly and very specifically refers to the actual financial loss, although it is hard to see how they may be distinguished.

It has been observed, in respect of Section 7 2(a) which empowers an Adjudicator to also take into account of the conduct of an employer  that.

 ‘if the determination of the WRC is one of unfair dismissal, that will go towards the finding and have no significance on its own It is difficult to see the point of Section 7 (2) (a).

Redmond on Dismissal Law, Third Edition, Bloomsbury page 563.

This is clearly the case as an Adjudicator has no power to penalise an employer for a greater degree of gravity in how the termination was effected; it can only be one legal standard of ‘unfair’ (although the circumstances may vary in gravity.)

Something similar might be said in respect of this provision.

If it were to be construed very narrowly in respect of the contribution of a complainant to his financial loss exclusively and not to the decision to terminate itself, this would make little practical sense as the circumstances in which a complainant might do so are hard to imagine. The most probable way in which this might arise is already provided for under the provision on the duty to mitigate.

Accordingly, I proceed to consider the complainant’s contribution to the circumstances which gave rise to his dismissal.

It was significant.

The complainant’s refusal to cooperate with and his attempt to obstruct a dignity at work investigation in any circumstances would be a matter of  very serious concern and be likely to give rise to disciplinary action on its own merits.

To do so on the basis of an entirely spurious attempt to reopen a matter which had been well disposed of in July 2018 was especially without merit and nothing more than a fig leaf for the complainant’s attempt to disrupt a valid investigation which the respondent was obliged to carry out under its general duty of care. 

He compounded this by introducing a purely opportunistic grievance about the failure to review his salary, which had no relevance to the investigation.

Thereafter, the complainant went on various periods of sick leave; the first in February 2023 for a period of a month following the first investigation and again from June 16th, from which he did not return, although he had indicated that he would.

The respondent may have had its suspicions that the sick leave was ‘tactical’ but  the sick leave was certified and the processes for acting on any such suspicions have been set out in Humphries v. Westwood Fitness Club, Labour Court No. EED037 ED/02/59 (December 18, 2003)[2004] 15 E.L.R. 296.

An employer is not relieved of the requirements of fair procedure by whatever provocation and ensuing frustration it may have experienced at a complainant’s actions. Ultimately the decision of the Board in September to terminate the employment was peremptory and entirely lacking in fairness, as it now accepts.

Nonetheless, I conclude that the complainant’s conduct made a significant contribution to his termination.

Turning to the issue of mitigation the complainant made some effort to seek alternative employment, but it was not convincing. He referred in his post hearing submission to some thirty applications but most, if not all of these were in the weeks immediately before the hearing; indeed some were after it.

He cited his age (he is in his seventies) as a factor in his difficulty in finding employment, and, in my opinion, this is a factor that can be taken into account.

However, an adjudicator is also required to have regard to what is considered appropriate having regard to all the circumstances and what is just and equitable.  In the absence of these considerations related to the complainant’s conduct, the circumstances of the dismissal would have warranted a significant award of compensation of around one year’s salary, and I do take into account his difficulty in securing alternative employment at his age.

The following complaints are well-founded.

CA-00060643-001 Unfair Dismissals Act

On these facts, and despite the actions and omissions of the complainant it would be neither just nor equitable to deny him any redress. Accordingly, I award him €8,500.

 CA-00060643-003 and 004 Minimum Notice

I also award him €3,660.46 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, that the complainant as he did not receive notice or payment in lieu of notice  on the termination of his employment.

CA-00060643-006 Payment of Wages Act

I accept  therespondent’ssubmissionthathavingregardtothecognisableperiodunderthe1991 Act,annualleaveshouldbecappedat12.5daysonly,whichwouldgivehimanentitlement to €2,287.79.

In respect of the other complaints, those of discrimination under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998  CA-00060643-002  and under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 were withdrawn. CA-00060643-007.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00060643-001 Unfair Dismissals Act is upheld, and I award the complainant €8,500.

 Complaints CA-00060643-003 and 004 Minimum Notice are well founded, and I award the complainant €3,660.46

Complaint CA-00060643-006 (Payment of Wages Act) is well founded and I award the complainant €2,287.79.

Complaints, CA-00060643-002  and CA-00060643-007 were withdrawn

Unfair dismissal, mitigation, employee actions