Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Andrejs  Loginovs

Ijm Timber Frames

Representatives

Ms Christina O’Byrne BL instructed by Ms Tracey Brady,  McGuigan Solicitors

 Company Management.

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-00055563-001

15/03/2023

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

CA-00055563-002

15/03/2023

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

CA-00055563-003

15/03/2023

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 1st August 2020 until 16th August 2023. The Complainant was employed as a General Operative in the Respondent’s factory.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15th March 2023.

·        The Complainant was employed as a Production Operative with the Respondent pursuant to a contract of employment dated 31 August 2020. Throughout the Complainant’s employment he was never subject to disciplinary action or to any breach of policy and/or procedure of the Respondent.

·        The Complainant worked without issue in relation to his performance since the commencement of employment.

·        The Complainant commenced a period of sick leave on 28 June 2022 following a request of the Respondent’s Production Manager Mr Hugh McElroy for the Complainant to see a doctor.

·        The Respondent wrote on 4 August 2022 and 11 August 2022 seeking the Complainant to clarify his plans and of his current situation. The Respondent waited six hours after the second email to receive a response from the Complainant before stating in an internal email. “Can you let Liam know that his employment with IJM should be ceased.”

·        The Complainant had no notice in either email that his period of sick leave was placing his employment at immediate risk of dismissal. The Respondent failed on both occasions to raise this critical issue with the Complainant. There is no reference to any process being implemented or any dismissal procedure the Respondent was to follow.

·        The Complainant made contact with Mr Hugh McElroy on 18 August 2022. In internal emails within the Respondent of the same date Mr McElroy outlines the Complainant was removed from his employment on 16 August 2022. Mr McElroy states, “I will call him and ask him to contact me when he is healthy and available for work and we can then make a decision whether to bring him back or not.”

·        The Complainant engaged with the Respondent through the provision of two medical certificates to the Respondent. Firstly, for the period of 30 June 2022 to 2 September 2022 and a second certificate from 4 October 2022 for a further two months. The Complainant was not at any time made aware that he was certifying sick leave for a position that had been terminated.

·        The Complainant sought to return to work in November 2022 and was notified of his dismissal by letter from his employment on 25 November 2022. The Respondent’s Production Manager Mr McElroy states, “…Andrejs Loginovs was let go from IJM Timber Engineering Limited on 15/08/2022. He called today to enquire about work. I explained that we have no requirement for further staff up to Christmas.”

·        The Complainant was not provided with any fair procedures whatsoever in relation to his dismissal and was not afforded an opportunity to enter into any type of process or discussion in relation to his dismissal.

·        The Complainant made a data access request for a copy of his personal data and the Respondent provided copies of this data. However, no Employment Handbook has been supplied. The within submissions are made without prejudice the fact that the Complainant has limited access to this documentation in his claims for adjudication.

·        The first two complaints are the subject of the within hearing. The Complainant is seeking compensation by way of redress for both complaints as outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint form.

·        The Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment. He was afforded no fair procedures whatsoever and was denied any natural justice. The Respondent did not afford the Complaint the opportunity to avail of any procedure and instead unilaterally terminated his contract of employment.

Factual Background

The Complainant’s commencement with the Respondent.

·        Andrej’s Loginovs (“the Complainant”) lodged three claims with the Workplace Relations Commission (“the WRC”) on 15 March 2023 against his former employer IJM Timber Engineering Limited (“the Respondent”) stated as IJM Timber Frames. The Complainant's first claim is made under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015 ("UD Acts") and is made under complaint reference CA-00055563-001.

·        The Complainant was not provided with minimum notice of termination and thus brings a second claim pursuant Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act,1973, complaint reference CA-00055563-002.

·        The Complainant began his current employment commencing on 31 August 2020. When he commenced his employment, he was given his Contract of Employment [The Contract] and a full induction checklist was undertaken by the Respondent which included the provision of an Employee Handbook. It is notable that the employee handbook was not included in the data access request provided by the Respondent on 6 April 2023.

·        Furthermore, the Contract does not have any provisions in relation to termination or dismissal, there are no clauses regarding disciplinary or grievance procedures nor is there any clause referencing sick notification procedures or absences from the workplace due to sick leave. There is a clause 8 which refers to sick pay which states, “The Company does not operate an occupational sick pay scheme. If you are absent form work due to sickness you should claim social welfare entitlement”.

Medical absence.

·        The Complainant worked without issue in relation to his performance since commencement of employment. On 28 June 2022 the Respondent’s Production Manager Mr Hugh McElroy became aware that the Complainant was unwell and requested that he see a doctor. The Complainant commenced a period of sick leave on 28 June 2022. The Complainant attended Dr Crummie on 30 June 2022 where he was diagnosed as having an acute stress reaction with depressive symptoms.

·        The Complainant had been scheduled to take annual leave on 15 July 2022 which had been previously planned before he took sick leave. The Complainant was partially paid for the two weeks holiday in July 2022. This was the last payment received from the Respondent. While in Latvia the Complainant experienced a seizure on 25 July 2022 which led to a fall and head injury and was hospitalised as a result.

·        The Complainant continued his period of sick leave after his time in Latvia. On 3 August the Complainant attended a consultation with Dr Venter and a referral was made to neurology.

Dismissal.

·        Ms Siobhan Finn of the Respondent wrote an email to the Complainant on 4 August 2023 stating; “Since your conversation with Hugh McElroy on 28/6/22, two and a half weeks before the summer holidays, we have had no contact from you regarding your personal circumstances. It is imperative that you make contact with the Company to clarify your plans.”

·        The Respondent emailed the Complainant on 11 August 2022 at 09.43 stating in one line, “Please make contact with IJM to inform us of your current situation and if you intend returning to work.

·        The Respondent waited six hours to receive a response from the Complainant. Whereby in an internal email at 15.54 on the same date from Ms Laura Daly to Ms Finn and Mr McElroy it states, “Thanks Siobhan. Can you let Liam know that his employment with IJM should be ceased.”

·        The Complainant had no notice in either email that his lack of contact and/ or correspondence during his period of sick leave was placing his employment at immediate risk of dismissal.

·        The requests did not follow any earlier formal correspondence or verbal discussion or conversation in relation to termination. The Respondent failed to use this correspondence to raise this critical issue with the Complainant. In this email there was no mention of a process being implemented under the Respondent’s termination procedure.

·        The Complainant called Hugh McElroy who said they had not heard from him. The Complainant called Mr McElroy when he seen the email of 11 August 2022. The Complainant informed Mr McElroy that he had gone on sick leave and he had the sick certificates to show that he had been certified unwell.

·        Mr McElroy said he needed to see these documents. The Complainant attended at the Respondent’s site with the sick certificates for June, July and August.

·        On the 18 August 2022 the Complainant sent a text to Mr McElroy, stating; “Hello Huge I get your letter. Really l was thinking you know that I have sick note. l was thinking doctor will inform you. l have health problems and waiting for appointments to the check. My sick list now is until 2.09”

·        l hope after I can return to work.

·        On the same date internal emails within the Respondent between Mr McElroy and Ms Finn outline the Complainant was removed from his employment on 16 August 2022. Mr McElroy states, “I will call him and ask him to contact me when he is healthy and available for work and we can then make a decision whether to bring him back or not.” 

·        The Complainant engaged with the Respondent through the provision of medical certificates to the Respondent for the period 30 June 2022 to 2 September 2022 and a second certificate from 4 October 2022 for a further two months. The Complainant was not at any time made aware that he was certifying his sick leave for a position that had been terminated.

·        The Complainant requested to return to employment at the end of November 2022 the Complainant was notified that he was dismissed as of the 15th of August 2022.

Legal Submission

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 CA-00055563-001.

·        The Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Act, as amended.

·        The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 requires the employer to identify the reason for dismissal and to justify the decision to dismiss. The Act of 1977 provides at section 6: -

6.— (1) 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

·        The Complainant has been dismissed without notice on 15 August 2023. No procedures were followed. No opportunity to defend the Complainant’s position was afforded to the Complainant. The Complainant was absent on sick leave in circumstances in which the Respondent requested the Complainant to leave the workplace and attend a doctor on 28 June 2022, as outlined above. The Complainant’s dismissal was made in full knowledge that the Complainant was on sick leave and thus “in work” and a permanent employee of the Respondent. The dismissal cannot be justified in these circumstances.

Procedures not followed.

·        The Respondent has failed in its entirety to comply with any relevant procedures in the within proceedings. Reliance is specifically placed on section 6(7) of the 1977 Act, which states:

“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 section7(2) of this Act.”

·        Section 14 (1) provides;

“14.— (1) An employer shall, not later than 28 days after he enters into a contract of employment with an employee, give to the employee a notice in writing setting out the procedure which the employer will observe before and for the purpose of dismissing the employee.”

·        The Respondent supplied the Complainant with a contract but said contract has no provision for procedures on how or in what circumstances an employee can be dismissed. Regardless, the two letters of 4 August and 11 August 2022 from the Respondent to the Complainant references no procedures that were being followed or would be followed. The Complainant remains a stranger to the process and/or procedure in which he was dismissed.

·        Furthermore, the Complainant was afforded no due process and fair procedures as set out above.

·         The Complainant was not afforded any hearing, or opportunity to respond to the dismissal that he had no notice of. Instead, the Complainant’s sick certificates were received by the Respondent and the Complainant was given the clear instruction from Mr McElroy that he was to contact the Respondent when he was healthy and available for work.

The Reasonableness of the decision to dismiss

·        Section 6(7) of the Act of 1977 provides that having regard to whether a dismissal is fair the Commission can consider the "reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal.

·        In Allied Irish Banks plc v Purcell [2012] 23 E.L.R. 189, Judge Linnane approved the test set out British Leyland UK Ltd v. Swift [1981] IRLR 91. She held that the appropriate approach to be taken in an unfair dismissal under the Act of 1977, as amended, was to consider was it reasonably open for the employer to make the decision to dismiss. She ruled that it is not for the Court to consider if they would have dismissed in the employee in the same circumstances or to substitute its views for the employers:

‘It is clear that it is not for the EAT or this court to ask whether it would dismiss in the circumstances or substitute its view for the employer’s view but to ask was it reasonably open to the respondent to make the decision it made rather than necessarily the one the EAT or the court would have taken’.

·        In Reilly v. Bank of Ireland [2015] IEHC 241, Noonan J. agreed with the views of Linnane J. in Allied Irish Banks plc v Purcell and he stated: -

“It is thus clear that the onus is on the employer to establish that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the matters specified in s. 6(4), which includes the conduct of the employee or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. 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.” (at para. 38)

·        It is submitted that the Commission in any and all assessment of the decision of the Respondent cannot place the dismissal in these circumstances within the band of reasonableness. The facts have been recited above. The decision to dismiss followed a process in blatant breach of all and any procedures, with no regard to natural justice and during a period of sick leave in which the Respondent was fully aware of having requested the Complainant to see a doctor on 28 June 2022.

·        There was no reality to any return to work when the Complainant was fit for work, given that the decision had already been taken to terminate the Complainant.

·        The dismissal was a unilateral termination by the Respondent with no notification to the Complainant, done without any procedure whatsoever and is automatically unfair and unlawful.

·        The Complainant was unfairly dismissed and his complaint should be upheld

Mitigation of Loss

·        The Complainant has complied with all and every obligation to mitigate his loss arising from his dismissal. The Complainant started new employment on the 3 July 2023.

·        The Complainant’s salary was weekly approximately €460 after tax. The Complainant worked approximately 40 hours a week up to 52 hours with overtime. The Complainant has a loss of approximately €22,000.00. The Complainant seeks appropriate compensation.

Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. CA-00055563-002

·        Clause 9 of the Contract provides for the appropriate notice period to be given to the Respondent should an employee intend to leave the employment. The Complainant’s duration of service with the Respondent requires a two weeks’ notice period.

·        The Respondent has not paid the Complainant two weeks’ notice. The Complainant is due a sum of €920.00 in this regard.

·        The Respondent did not pay the Claimant full pay for two weeks annual leave. The Complainant was only paid €775.96. The Complainant is due a sum of €100.20 in this regard.

Conclusion

·        The Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. He was not afforded any fair procedures whatsoever and the Respondent failed to follow any and all procedures in its unilateral termination of the Complainant.

·        The Complainant submits that all claims should be upheld.

The Complainant, Andrejs Loginovs, was employed as a General Operative from 31st August 2020, he worked 39 hours per week at the rate of €13.25 per hour (weekly gross €516.75).

On 28th June 2022, at approximately 4.30pm the Complainant’s erratic behaviour came to the attention of the Production Manager, Hugh McElroy. Mr McElroy approached the Complainant and asked him was he ok. The Complainant explained that he was not feeling well and he may need to see a doctor. Mr McElroy agreed that he should see a doctor and report back to him.

The company received no communication or sick certificates from the Complainant. On 4th August he was contacted by email, followed up on 5th August 2022 by letter requesting that he contact the company to clarify his plans. As the company received no response to these contacts, he was put on the leavers list in the payroll system on 16th August 2022.

On 18th August 2022 the Company received a text message from the Complainant stating that he had health problems and was waiting for a medical appointment. The Complainant then submitted two medical certificates to the Respondent:

1.      Dated 2nd September 2022 from 30th June to 1st October 2022.

2.      Dated 4th October 2022 from 4th October for 2 months.

The Respondent then contacted the Complainant asking that he makes contact with them when he was fit for work.

On 25th November 2022 the Complainant contacted the company to say that he was available for work. Mr McElroy informed the Complainant that he could not employ him before Christmas. The Complainant then asked for a letter for Social Welfare informing them that he was looking for work - the letter referred to in the Complainant’s submission to the WRC.

The Complainant was not dismissed on 25th November 2022, he was informed that the situation would be reviewed after Christmas. The Complainant made no further contact with the Respondent.

To date a ‘fit for work’ certificate has not been provided to the company.

Following his failure to communicate with the company or to comply with sick notification procedures he was placed on the Leavers list on 16th August 2022.

CA – 00055563 – 002 Minimum Notice.

Mr Loginovs contract was not terminated by his employer.

CA-00055563-001 – complaint submitted under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The representative for the claimant has quoted Allied Irish Banks plc v Purcell [2012] 23 E.L.R. 189, Judge Linnane approved the test set out British Leyland UK Ltd v. Swift [1981] IRLR 91. She held that the appropriate approach to be taken in an unfair dismissal under the Act of 1977, as amended, was to consider was it reasonably open for the employer to make the decision to dismiss. She ruled that it is not for the Court to consider if they would have dismissed the employee in the same circumstances or to substitute its views for the employers:

‘It is clear that it is not for the EAT or this court to ask whether it would dismiss in the circumstances or substitute its view for the employer’s view but to ask was it reasonably open to the respondent to make the decision it made rather than necessarily the one the EAT or the court would have taken’.

‘Perfect’ procedural justice has been defined as the ideal of a procedure guaranteed to lead to an outcome where justice is identified by some independent criterion (See Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Clarendon Press, 1972). The balance between substantive and procedural justice becomes most crucial in relation to the reasonableness of an employer’s decision to dismiss. Increasingly, procedural justice is being taken for granted by all concerned and the WRC’s function is to decide how exacting its tenets shall be. An employer will be regarded as having fairly dismissed an employee only if it both gave the employee the full benefits of a fair procedure and accorded him his just deserts or established a functional necessity for his dismissal. Section 6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 further emphasises the importance of reasonableness. In determining if a dismissal is unfair regard may be had:

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 [employer must give employee within 28 days of employment its dismissal procedure] or with the provisions of any code of practice [regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister].

In the instant case the Respondent has an Employee Handbook containing the organisation’s Policies and Procedures. One such policy relates to Timekeeping / Sickness / Absenteeism Policy. This policy reads as follows:

Absenteeism Policy.

 It is important that each individual is clear about his/ her responsibility in respect of both the notification and confirmation of all periods of absence from work. This does not include absences such as annual leave, training courses etc., which are recorded by other means, but all other absences whether or not directly, related to sickness must be dealt in accordance with this procedure.

Absence from work rules:

Employees are required to co-operate fully with management to enable complete and accurate records to be kept in respect of all absences from work, whether agreed in advance or otherwise.

Employees must co-operate with all reasonable management requests in respect of absence from work, such as confirmation of hospital appointments, etc.

Absence due to accident at work will be investigated and a percentage payment of same if any will be determined by the outcome of the investigation. Prolonged payment will be reviewed on a weekly basis.

Notification of Absence Procedure:

First Day

If you are unable to attend for work you must notify your manager without delay on the first day of absence but no later than one hour after start time. You must ensure that your manager is advised of a likely return date.

Subsequent Days (Production Staff):

After 2 days illness you must claim payments from social welfare

Authorised Absence:

Absence from work for dental, hospital appointments, weddings etc. is permitted providing the company receives reasonable notice.

Medical Examination

It is a condition of employment that you attend a doctor nominated by the Company for medical examination or counselling if requested to do so as part of the Company’s rules and regulations on fitness for work, hygiene, etc. Should an accident occur at work, the Company reserves the right at any time to require an employee to undergo a medical examination by a doctor nominated by the Company. The Company also reserves the right to undertake home visits and/or consult with employee’s doctor.

Medical Expenses/Accidents

In the event that the employee has an accident at work, the Company will pay for initial emergency treatment if the cost of same would otherwise be the liability of the Employee, i.e. if the cost is not covered by the Health Acts. Further to a report by the Department Manager into the background and cause of any accident, the Company may consider payment for the first 3 days, upon receipt of a Medical Certificate from a doctor nominated by the Company, thereafter any Social Welfare payments will apply.

Disciplinary Procedure – Absence Control

Absence from work falls into two categories, (i.e. Authorised and Unauthorised). Three factors will be considered when an employee is sick, i.e.:

a) The duration of the illness.

 b) The frequency of the illness.

c) The nature of the illness.

1. If during a rolling 13-week period an employee is absent on 3 occasions or a total of 11 days, a verbal warning will be issued. Once a verbal warning has been issued the employee will be monitored on 13- week periods.

2. If during the next 13-week period, the employee is absent on 2 occasions or 8 days, a written warning will be issued.

3. If during the next 13-week period, the employee is absent on 2 occasions or 6 days, a final warning will be issued.

4. If during the next 13-week period, the employee is absent, the employee will be dismissed.

Employees may move back down the disciplinary scale if they have a 13-week period without any absence. The previous time periods serve as guidelines only and each case will be examined on its merits. In periods of longer-term illness, no employee will be dismissed without consultation with the employee and information being obtained about the state of his health, his prospects for recovery and a possible date for return to work.

Long Term Absence

If an employee is ill for 26 consecutive weeks, he/she will be placed on Long Term Absence register. This will mean that his/her contract of employment will effectively be suspended. The employee will be informed that if they do become fit in the near future, the Company will make every effort to provide the employee with work, provided that it is available. If the employee is still unfit for work after 12 months, his/her employment will be terminated.

I find it very strange that this policy does not mention the need to provide medical certification to the employer when employees are absent from work due to illness.

I find it difficult to establish, what if any, procedures were used in the instant case.

The Respondent has the right to refer employees to a company doctor, there was no referral to any company doctor in the instant case.

Procedurally I conclude that the dismissal was unfair.

CA-00055563-002

Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.

Clause 9 of the Contract provides for the appropriate notice period to be given to the Respondent should an employee intend to leave the employment. The Complainant’s duration of service with the Respondent requires a two weeks’ notice period.

The Respondent has not paid the Complainant two weeks’ notice. The Complainant is due a sum of €920.00 in this regard.

The Respondent did not pay the Claimant full pay for two weeks annual leave. The Complainant was only paid €775.96. The Complainant is due a sum of €100.20 in this regard.

Mitigation.

The common law rule of mitigation of damages applies to compensation for unfair dismissal. Questions of mitigation are questions of fact. The burden of proof lies on the party seeking to allege that another has failed to mitigate loss. Sir John Donaldson explained the duty in AG Bracy Ltd v Iles [1973] IRLR 210:

‘The law is that it is the duty of a dismissed employee to act reasonably in order to mitigate his loss. It may not be reasonable to take the first job that comes along. It may be much more reasonable, in the interests of the employee and of the employer who has to pay compensation, that he should wait a little time. He must, off course, use his time well and seek a better paid job which will reduce the overall loss and the amount of compensation which the previous employer ultimately has to pay……’

These principles are illustrated in decisions of the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court. It is clear that an employee must produce evidence at the unfair dismissal hearing that he or she has made a ‘determined effort to find work’ (Duggan v A&T Drain Services, UD 1737 (Labour Court, 28th July 2017).

In the instant case the following has to be considered:

·        By letter dated 1st December 2023 from the Complainant’s solicitor we can establish that the Complainant was in receipt of Illness benefit until 27th March 2023.

·        By way of a supplementary submission, we know that the Complainant applied for two jobs in Ireland during his period of unemployment.

·        The Complainant returned to Latvia in July 2023.

·        The Respondent has pointed to the following in reply to the Complainant’s supplementary submission:

The local labour market in Monaghan / Cavan reflects the strong demand for workers with all the major companies actively advertising and recruiting – Leonard Engineering Ltd, Kingspan Building Products, Combilft, Monaghan Mushrooms Ltd.

·        The Complainant was medically unfit for work from 16th August 2022 (the date of his dismissal) until 27th March 2023, this being the case there is no loss of earnings considered during this period.

·        Between 27th March 2023 and a date in July 2023, a period of 14 weeks, the Complainant applied for two jobs (as stated by Complainant rep in Supplemental Submission). I do not find that this is a ‘determined effort to find work’ ((Duggan v A&T Drain Services, UD 1737 (Labour Court, 28th July 2017). Due to this lack of determined effort I am reducing any loss of earnings award by 50%.

·        The Complainant returned to Latvia in early July 2023. This is a decision he made of his own choosing. The Complainant commenced employment in Latvia on 3rd July 2023. I will not consider any loss of earnings experienced by the Complainant in moving from Ireland to Latvia where earnings and the cost of living are substantially lower than in Ireland.

CA-00055563-003 – complaint submitted under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

This complaint was withdrawn at hearing.

In conclusion I find that the dismissal of the Complainant was procedurally unfair and therefore deem the complaint as presented to be well-found.

I now order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant as follows:

1.      Compensation for the effects of the Unfair Dismissal – 4 weeks pay (€516.65 x 4 = €2,066.60)

2.      Compensation for loss of earnings in Ireland – 14weeks pay (516.65 x 14 less 50% = €3,616.55).

3.      Pay in lieu of notice – 2 weeks x €516.65 = €1,033.30

4.      Unpaid holiday entitlement = €100.20

5.      Total €6,816.65.

All monies awarded to the Complainant should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.

In conclusion I find that the dismissal of the Complainant was procedurally unfair and therefore deem the complaint as presented to be well-found.

I now order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant as follows:

6.      Compensation for the effects of the Unfair Dismissal – 4 weeks’ pay (€516.65 x 4 = €2,066.60)

7.      Compensation for loss of earnings in Ireland – 14weeks pay (516.65 x 14 less 50% = €3,616.55).

8.      Pay in lieu of notice – 2 weeks x €516.65 = €1,033.30

9.      Unpaid holiday entitlement = €100.20

10.  Total €6,816.65.

All monies awarded to the Complainant should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.