The ‘One Year’ Calculation Mistake
A recent WRC case highlights the importance of following fair procedures and understanding the requirements of employment law in relation to dismissals. The complainant, Mr Ryan McAuley, raised an Unfair Dismissal claim against Miniso Ireland Limited after he was dismissed on the 359th day of his employment.
Background
Mr McAuley began his employment with Miniso Ireland on 30th April 2022 as a Shop Assistant. He was then promoted to Supervisor in September 2022. However, on 24th April 2023, he was abruptly dismissed. On that day, he had started his work shift at 10:00, as rostered. However, shortly after 12:00, he was called to the office of his manager, Ms Chloe Yi. He was handed a dismissal letter, stating unsatisfactory performance and that his employment was therefore terminated with immediate effect. Mr McAuley questioned the reason for his dismissal and was taken aback by the explanation given by Ms Yi.
Mr McAuley had never received any warnings, either informal or formal, or been the subject of any disciplinary procedure. Following the dismissal, he sought clarification about the termination. He received support from Citizens Information, but the matter was not resolved, so his claim proceeded to a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing.
Employment Law
An employee is usually required to have one year of service to raise an Unfair Dismissal claim (there are certain exceptions, such as for whistleblowers, but these weren’t relevant in this case). Whilst 359 days would initially appear to be less than the ‘one year’ required, The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act clarifies that if an employee accepts payment in lieu of notice (PILON), the termination date will be ‘the date on which notice, if given, would have expired.’ For Mr McAuley, this meant his service was calculated to end on the 366th day of his employment, making him eligible to claim Unfair Dismissal.
Conclusion
Mr McAuley attended the hearing, supported by a representative from the North Dublin Citizens Information Service. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
The WRC Adjudication Officer concluded the complaint was well founded; Mr McAuley had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay him €9,750 in compensation.
Takeaways for Employers
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to fair procedures and understanding the nuances of employment legislation.
Bright Contracts clients have access to a wide variety of employment resources to help ensure their practices are fair, legally compliant, and conducive to a positive work environment. Please visit our website or contact a member of our team to find out more about the support we can offer you.
Texting Trouble: The Importance of Notice Periods
Upholding employee rights and adhering to statutory requirements during notice periods is crucial. Even if an employer feels aggrieved by an employee’s resignation, it is vital to be aware that employment rights remain intact throughout the notice period. A recent WRC case highlights the financial and reputational risks of non-compliance during this critical time.
Ms Yewande Mosobalaje took a stand for her notice period rights by filing a WRC claim against her former employer, Sandonato Ltd t/a Lennox Fish and Chips. After starting her job in September 2023, Ms Mosobalaje gave two weeks’ verbal notice on 12th May 2024, which was accepted by Mr C on behalf of the employer. However, at 11.40pm the next day, he sent a text message stating there was no need to work her notice. Left without pay after 16th May, Ms Mosobalaje decided to take action by raising a WRC claim for notice pay. The respondent did not attend the hearing or provide an explanation for their absence.
As the complainant had eight months’ service, the WRC Adjudication Officer determined that the statutory notice, as per the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, was one week. Concluding the respondent had wrongfully withheld the wages for this notice period, the officer ordered Sandonato Ltd to pay €450 to Ms Mosobalaje.
Takeaways for Employers
While it is possible for an employer to fairly dismiss an employee without notice, strict requirements must be met. For instance, a contractual right to dismiss without notice may apply in cases of gross misconduct. Additionally, there are alternatives to working the notice period, such as PILON (pay in lieu of notice).
Bright Contracts clients benefit from comprehensive templates for employee contracts, with various options in the Notice clause, including dismissal without notice, PILON, and alternative duties. These provisions offer flexibility and clarity for employers. Please contact us to learn more about the helpful resources and support we can offer you.
A Win for Workplace Safety: Employer’s Victory in Phone Use Dismissal
DMC Foods Limited, a consumer foods business and ready meal manufacturer, successfully defended an Unfair Dismissal claim raised by Daniel Murtagh, a Warehouse Operative who was dismissed after using a mobile phone while operating a forklift. This case highlights the legal backing given to employers who follow clear, reasonable and legally compliant procedures.
Background
An investigation opened after the Production Manager received a complaint that Mr Murtagh was operating a forklift while using a mobile phone. An external party conducted the investigation, which included CCTV evidence and Mr Murtagh admitting to using the phone. Following the investigation, Mr Murtagh was invited to a Disciplinary Hearing, in which he was not apologetic but attempted to justify his actions. The Managing Director decided the seriousness of the health and safety breach, and the employee’s current written warning for a separate conduct incident, justified dismissal.
Mr Murtagh brought a claim of Unfair Dismissal, alleging that he was unfairly singled out and dismissed for using the phone, when it was common practice, and he was not driving ‘at speed’. His evidence included two statements from former colleagues, one of whom admitted to using a phone while their forklift was stationary, and the other who explained he had left the company after being informed of an investigation into his mobile phone use. Mr Murtagh conceded the use of a phone while operating a forklift was a dangerous practice.
Health and Safety Authority guidance to employers confirms that mobile phones should never be used while operating a forklift. The employer defended the claim by describing how the dismissal was procedurally fair, in line with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, and the dismissal outcome was proportionate with the seriousness of the health and safety breach.
WRC Decision
The WRC Adjudication Officer considered the evidence from both parties then determined that the use of the phone was ‘extremely dangerous’ and therefore justified a dismissal for the reason of conduct, and the procedure followed was reasonable. He concluded that the dismissal was fair.
Takeaways for Employers
Employers should feel confident about following fair and reasonable procedures to address safety concerns. Clear, reliable policies help to protect the best interests of employees and employers.
Bright Contracts provides employers with template HR documents which can be easily tailored to your specific needs. Our resources include comprehensive policies, helpful guidance notes, and useful supporting documents. Visit our website or talk to a member of our team to find out more about the support we offer.
€1,000 Lesson on Fair Dismissal Procedures
In this recent case, the complainant’s former employer was ordered to pay €1,000 compensation due to the dismissal process followed – and the amount could have been much higher...
Background
The complainant, Mr Grzegorz Grygier, started employment with Ideal Fire Limited in January 2022. He passed his 6-month probation on time and no concerns had been raised about his performance before he was invited to a meeting with Mr Ray Dooley, Company Director, in January 2023. During this meeting, Mr Grygier’s employment was terminated. The reason given was performance, due to an issue with a gas suppression system.
During the WRC hearing, Mr Dooley confirmed that no formal investigation had occurred, or a Disciplinary hearing, and he had not raised any issues with the complainant prior to the dismissal meeting.
Training records appeared to show only a limited amount of training, which may not have included gas suppression systems, and there had been no negative consequences to the company due to the incident.
The company representative confirmed the dismissal was due to the gas suppression system, but later it was suggested that the reason was instead due to an absence incident. No process had been followed regarding this absence, and it had not been referenced during the dismissal meeting.
WRC Decision
The WRC Adjudication Officer concluded that no investigation or Disciplinary process had been followed, the complainant was not given the opportunity to state his case, and he was not afforded the right to representation. Therefore, she found the dismissal to be procedurally unfair. The complainant’s case succeeded.
Following the Unfair Dismissal finding, the Adjudication Officer considered the amount of compensation to be ordered. The complainant had found employment a week after his notice period expired, and this new job included a higher rate of pay. The Adjudication Officer decided that the Respondent should pay €1,000 in compensation. If the complainant had not been so successful in quickly obtaining a better paid role, the compensation ordered could have been considerably higher!
Takeaways for Employers
This case confirms the importance of following fair Disciplinary procedures. If a reasonable process had taken place, the sequence of events could have been very different, potentially avoiding a claim happening at all.
Bright Contracts clients have access to a comprehensive Employee Handbook, including a template Disciplinary Policy. Please contact us if you would like more information.
Case Law: Big Fine for Not Providing Employment Documents!
A Dental Technician was awarded over €13,000 after her claims, of not being provided with written employment terms, Unfair Dismissal, and lack of notice pay, were upheld.
The negative consequences of not providing appropriate employment documents were highlighted in this recent Workplace Relations Commission case (ADJ-00034847).
Background
The complainant, Sarah O’Connor, worked as a Dental Technician for the respondent, Cas Dental.
O’Connor alleged that she had not received a written statement of her terms of employment, or a disciplinary procedure, or an employee handbook.
The complainant also explained that she did not receive a letter inviting her to the dismissal meeting. The dismissal meeting lasted about a minute. She was not given notice pay or the right to appeal.
Defence
Mr Colum Sower, a director of the respondent, explained that he thought he had a period of one year to issue an employment contract and this was his understanding based on advice he had received from the Small Business Association.
Mr Sower gave evidence that he issued the complainant with verbal warnings and a written warning before the dismissal, although there was no final written warning or formal improvement plan.
A notice payment was not made, but the complainant was given a payment for good will.
The respondent accepted the procedure used was not perfect but argued that the complainant had not met the required performance standards and there are serious consequences of not meeting standards in the medical profession.
WRC Decision
The WRC Adjudicator found that the claim of not being issued with written terms of employment was well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay compensation of four weeks’ remuneration to the complainant.
The claim of lack of notice pay was also upheld and the WRC Adjudicator ordered the respondent to pay one week’s remuneration to the complainant.
The WRC Adjudicator concluded that the Unfair Dismissal claim was well founded.
There were breaches of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, including no opportunity for representation at the dismissal meeting, and serious procedural flaws. The Adjudicator concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the complainant in the circumstances and in this manner. The respondent was ordered to pay €12,000 compensation to the complainant.
Takeaways for Employers
It is essential to comply with the legal requirement to provide employees with written terms and conditions of employment within the required time limits. The excuse of receiving incorrect advice was not accepted by the WRC Adjudicator.
Bright Contracts clients can quickly and easily create legally compliant terms and conditions of employment using the step-by-step instructions in our software.
It is also important to understand legal obligations relating to notice pay.
Bright Contracts includes a legally compliant template contract clause about notice.
Finally, failure to follow reasonable procedures can result in serious consequences. In the O’Connor v Cas Dental Case, the respondent suffered reputational damage and was ordered to pay significant amounts of compensation.
Bright Contracts has a ready to go Employee Handbook which clients can tailor to their requirements. Policies and procedures are reviewed and updated in line with employment law changes and recommended practices.
Case Law - Dismissal of Agency Workers
The employment relationship between an employment agency, the agency worker and the "end user" or "hirer" is an interesting one.
A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) case (ADJ-00032076) demonstrates the importance of understanding which party is responsible for the potential unfairness of any dismissal of an agency worker.
Here, the agency worker (the "Complainant") was dismissed by the hirer / end user (the "Respondent") for alleged breaches of company policy.
The Complainant brought an Unfair Dismissal claim to the WRC against the Respondent and submitted that the Respondent, as end user / hirer, and not the employment agency was his employer for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissal Acts.
WRC decision – Unfair Dismissal Claim
The WRC Adjudication Officer ("AO") was satisfied that a written contract was in place between the Complainant and the employment agency, who could be considered to be the Complainant’s employer in "general terms". However, the AO referred to Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1993 which states that an agency worker shall be deemed to be an employee of the third person under a contract of employment, i.e. the end user / hirer, not the employment agency.
Consequently, the AO found that the Complainant was employed by (and, in the circumstances, unfairly dismissed by) the Respondent in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals Acts.
In relation to the Complainant's efforts to mitigate his losses, the AO found that the Complainant had not made sufficient efforts in this respect. As a consequence, the AO awarded the Complainant just 4 weeks remuneration (€2,494.44) which he found was just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Notice Pay Claim
The Complainant had also brought a claim for notice pay as he was dismissed for gross misconduct and did not receive his notice.
Interestingly, the AO found that, unlike the Unfair Dismissals Act, under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, the Respondent was not the Complainant's employer. As a result the Complainant's claim for notice pay was not well-founded.
Conclusion
This is a somewhat unusual provision which may come as a surprise to many employers. Organisations who regularly use agency workers or even those who enter into once-off arrangements with employment agencies are urged to be aware of their obligations and the associated risks when it comes to terminating an agency worker's contract of employment. Such organisations are also advised to consider incorporating relevant indemnities into their commercial agreements with employment agencies for further protections in this regard.
The AO's approach to the Complainant's failure to mitigate his loss is interesting and should also be noted.
Termination of Employment
An employer must have a reason to dismiss an employee. Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, the dismissal of an employee is deemed not to be unfair if it is for reasons of capability, conduct, capacity, redundancy, contravening the law, or some other substantial reason.
Giving Notice
At a minimum, employers must give employees the following statutory periods of notice.
Duration of employment Minimum notice
- 13 weeks to 2 years -1 week
- 2 to 5 years -2 weeks
- 5 to 10 years -4 weeks
- 10 to 15 years-6 weeks
- 15 years or more -8 weeks
If the employee’s contract of employment provides for notice in excess of the statutory period, the contractual notice must be given.
An employer may dismiss an employee without notice for gross misconduct e.g assault, stealing or serious breach of employment policies. Employment contracts or handbooks may contain further examples of gross misconduct.
Termination Procedures
The Workplace Relations Commission has introduced a Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures which employers should follow when dismissing an employee. Disciplinary action may include:
- An oral warning
- A written warning
- A final written warning
- Suspension without pay
- Transfer to another task, or section of the enterprise
- Demotion
- Some other appropriate disciplinary action short of dismissal
- Dismissal
You can read more about Unfair Dismissal in our previous blog post, Unfair Dismissal Claims & How to Avoid Them
Bright Contracts Software has a “Resignation and Termination” policy in the “Terms and Conditions” section of the handbook. Furthermore, in the Company Policies and Procedures section, there is a Grievance/Dispute Procedures which you can edit to your company needs.
How to Dismiss an Employee
Unfortunately, as an employer or business owner, you need to know how to dismiss an employee. No matter what the reason is there is a process that you should always adhere to.
The most important thing to consider is the reason for the termination and if you have taken any steps to try and assist your employee. If you are dealing with an underperforming employee, you shouldn’t automatically think of dismissing them. You should instead understand why the employee is underperforming and assist them in any way to help them improve.
Investigate the situation
The first thing that needs to be done if you are considering dismissing an employee is to formally investigate the situation. Be sure that the documentation clearly outlines the initial complaint or disciplinary issue with the employee as well as the relevant details of the investigation itself. A full list of participants, including what was said in any of the interviews.
After completing the investigation, you may discover the complaints or performance issues that were raised in the interviews were a misunderstanding, a false allegation or not a fault of the employee in question. In most cases, the situation can be resolved with a conversation.
Provide a warning
If after investigating and you conclude that the employee is at fault, you will need to provide them with an official warning. Where the complaint is minor or does not require further action no other disciplinary action needs to be taken.
For more serious incidents, make sure that the employee understands that you are giving them a warning and what the next steps will be if they fail to improve.
Be Professional
If you have conducted your investigations, issued a warning, and have proof of the breach of contract, then you have no option left but to dismiss your employee. For the protection of the company, it is vital that you have the right reasons and supporting evidence for the dismissal. When it comes to delivering the news, you must do this face to face with the employee.
You should adhere to the following points:
- Be prepared, and calmly explain the reasons for the dismissal
- Reiterate the previous warning that has been given and refer to the documentation
- Ensure that the process is short and does not linger for longer than necessary
For legal reasons, you should document and issue the dismissal in written format.
Honour existing agreements
Just because the employee has left does not mean that you can ignore any post dismissal laws that are in place. You must continue to follow both the company policy and legal protocols, including the payments for all hours worked up until the moment of dismissal. If you are required to give your employee two weeks’ notice you may dismiss them immediately, but you will need to provide them with the equivalent of two weeks’ pay.
Related Articles:
Unfair Dismissal Claims & How to avoid them
Back to Basics - Disciplinary Steps and Sanctions
Unfair Dismissal Claims & How to avoid them
An unfair dismissal can occur when your employer terminates your contract of employment with or without notice or the employee terminates their contract of employment with or without notice due to the conduct of your employer.
A dismissal is automatically considered to be unfair if you are dismissed for any of the following reasons:
- Membership or proposed membership of a trade union or engaging in trade union activities
- Religious or political opinions
- Legal proceedings against an employer where you are a party or a witness
- Race, colour, sexual orientation, age, or member of the Traveller community
- Pregnancy, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected with pregnancy or birth
- Availing of rights under legislation to maternity leave, adoptive leave, parental leave, carer’s leave, parental leave, or force majeure leave
- Unfair selection for redundancy
Steps to avoid Unfair Dismissal
Have clear policies
It is important to ensure that all new and current employees have access to the companies’ policies regarding harassment, dress code and attendance policies. The policies must be easy to read for the employee and available to them at any stage during their employment. These policies are not only to keep employees informed but they are used as important reference points to use as the employer during the disciplinary process. Failing to follow these policies can result in an unfair dismissal claim.
HR & Equality training
Employers need to make sure that the dismissal is thoroughly thought through beforehand and is not an impulsive retaliation to an employee’s actions. By providing training for all staff members involved in the dismissal process you will know that the process is being conducted legally.
Keep track of employee conduct
Terminating an employee can sometimes devolve into a he-said she-sad argument with no clear winner. Without proper documentation, it can be difficult to terminate an employee without fearing an unfair dismissal claim. When you begin to see that an employee might not be suitable for your company, start keeping track of their misconduct. Use a word document or journal to keep track of any problems the employee encounters. For example, take note of any time they showed up late or were not dressed appropriately.
Implement a performance management plan
When you first discuss with the employee about potentially dismissing them, you will need to set up a performance management plan to give your employee a chance to improve. If you still need to terminate this employee, the document plan shows that you tried to help your employee. Employers can do this by setting up parameters and goals for their improvement.
Related Articles:
The WHO? WHAT?WHERE? and WHY? Of The WRC
Back to Basics - Disciplinary Steps and Sanctions
The WHO?WHAT?WHERE? and WHY? Of The WRC
The Workplace Relations Commission, or as they are more commonly referred to, the WRC, are a body which companies discuss in hushed tones as we associate them with discrimination cases but do we all know exactly WHO they are and WHAT they do besides being the deciding body on employment law cases? I don’t think many of us are sure, which is why our blog post will dive into the WHO?WHAT?WHERE? and WHY? Of The WRC.
Established on the 1st of October 2015, The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is an independent, statutory body which is Irish government-operated, which decides cases of alleged discrimination under Irish equality legislation. It was established under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which reforms the State’s employment rights and industrial relations structures to deliver a better service for employers and employees.
Previously there were 5 separate bodies which dealt with complaints and disputes relating to industrial relations, employment law and employment equality but under the new system there are now 2 statutory bodies, namely The Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court. The Commission has a board consisting of a chairperson and 8 ordinary members appointed by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
The WRC provides information on employment law, equality and industrial relations to employees, employers and representative bodies of employees and employers. The function of the WRC is to provide advisory and conciliation services. Upon request, the Advisory Service engages with employers, employees and their representatives to help them to develop effective industrial relations practices, procedures and structures. This assistance could include reviewing or developing effective workplace procedures in areas such as grievance, discipline, communications and consultation.
Conciliation is a voluntary process where the parties to a dispute agree to avail of a neutral and impartial third party who will assist them in resolving their industrial relations differences. How the WRC assists in this situation is they will provide an Industrial Relations Officer to chair negotiations with the view of steering the discussions and exploring possible solutions in a non-prejudicial fashion. Solutions are reached only by consensus, hence the outcome is voluntary.
WRC inspectors visit workplaces and carry out inspections of employer’s records to ensure compliance with employment and equality legislation. An inspection may arise as a result of a complaint being received of alleged non-compliance, a campaign focussing on a specific sector or a particular piece of legislation, or it may simply be a routine inspection. Where breaches of legislation have been found, the inspector may, depending on the legislation involved, issue either a compliance notice or a fixed payment notice to the employer.
The WRC also has responsibility for:
• promoting the improvement of workplace relations, and maintenance of good workplace relations,
• promoting and encouraging compliance with relevant enactments,
• providing guidance in relation to compliance with codes of practice approved under Section 20 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015,
• conducting reviews of, and monitor developments as respects, workplace relations,
• conducting or commissioning research into matters pertaining to workplace relations,
• providing advice, information and the findings of research conducted by the Commission to joint labour committees and joint industrial councils,
• advising and apprising the Minister in relation to the application of, and compliance with, relevant enactments, and
• providing information to members of the public in relation to employment
Related Articles:
- Don't Get Caught Out: The 5 Core Terms
- Don't Get Caught Out: Maximum Award For The Employee Against Mandatory Retirement
