Anne O'Connell Solicitors | View firm profile
Francisco Martin Santano v Enable Ireland Sandymount School (ADJ-00050049) concerned a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015.
The Complainant claimed that he was unfairly dismissed when the Respondent refused his request to take a career break, needed due to loss of his accommodation in Dublin, and subsequently refused to allow him to return to his role when he finally secured accommodation months later. The Respondent claimed that his employment contract was frustrated when he left Dublin and he was not dismissed.
Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st September 2019 as a Special Needs Assistant. On 29th January 2023 the Complainant requested a one-year career break as he had to move out from his home by 22nd March 2023. His lease had been terminated by his landlord after 10 years. The Complainant described the effects of the cost of living and accommodation crisis in Dublin to the WRC; that he was unable to secure a property to rent in Dublin and was unable to purchase a property. He managed to agree an extension with his landlord to stay in his current home until the end of June 2023, meaning he could finish his work commitments for the current academic year. However, the Complainant submitted he was then left with no option but to relocate home to Spain ahead of the 2023/2024 academic year.
His request for a career break was denied by the Board of Management of the School on grounds that only a certain number of teachers and special needs assistants were eligible for a career break at any one time, to ensure the school meets its obligations to its pupils, and the quota had been reached. The Complainant contacted the Department of Education who advised him that it was a matter for the Board of Management at the Respondent to resolve and that he could appeal the decision. The Complainant submitted his appeal, but it was unsuccessful. The Board of Management expressed to him that they recognised it was not the solution he was hoping for but that they were willing to engage with the Complainant if he was to apply for a role again in the future. The Complainant sent a letter to the Chairperson of the Board of Management in July 2023 outlining the exceptional circumstances that he faced, that he had to move home to Spain but would keep the school informed of any change if he secured accommodation.
In December 2023 the Complainant informed the school that he would returning as he secured accommodation in Dublin as of 1st January 2024. The Respondent notified the Complainant that his contract of indefinite duration had been frustrated by his failure to return to work for the new academic year. The school had no choice but to recruit new applicants for his position as special needs assistants are critical to the support and education of the children in the school’s care.
Separately the Complainant also described his frustrations with trying to access his personal data over a number of months after he submitted a data subject access request (“DSAR”) to the Respondent. In particular he requested minutes of meetings where his career break was discussed. The Complainant raised a complaint with the Data Protection Commission due to the Respondent’s failure to engage with his DSAR.
Decision: The Adjudicator, Mr Jim Dolan, determined that he did not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaints concerning the Complainant’s personal data/potential breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation, as these should be referred to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. In relation to the complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, the Adjudicator found no dismissal had taken place and therefore the complaint was not well-founded. In relation to the refusal to grant the Complainant a career break, the Adjudicator had regard to the Department of Education’s circular on the topic which states “in drawing up this policy, the welfare and educational needs of the pupils shall take precedence over all other considerations. The sole discretion as whether to grant an application for a career break rests with the employer”.
The Adjudicator also considered the Respondent’s position that the contract had been frustrated. He referred to the following explanation of the doctrine of frustration in Redmond on Dismissal Law: “a contract of employment may end as a result of the legal doctrine of frustration, that is, where performance of the employee’s duties in the future would become radically different from that undertaken by him”. The Adjudicator found it impossible to disagree with the Respondent’s position, that the employee’s act of returning to Spain frustrated the employment contract.
Takeaway for Employers: This is an interesting WRC decision as it is very rare that a contract of employment is held to be terminated by frustration. The decision quotes useful authorities on the doctrine of frustration. Separately, the decision also demonstrates the very real impact of the Irish housing crisis on industrial relations and employment law matters in Ireland. It is likely that similar cases will arise in the future, as employees may experience difficulty finding affordable accommodation in Dublin. Employers should be mindful of their policies and procedures in place concerning career breaks and/or requests for remote working or working from abroad. Any decisions made under these policies and the reasons for those decisions should be well documented. Indeed, if an employer can demonstrate they treated the employee experiencing this hardship with fairness and compassion and duly considered their request in line with established procedures (with the option to appeal), they will be better placed to defend potential claims.
Link – https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/april/adj-00050049.html
Authors – Tara Kelly and Anne O’Connell
6th June 2025
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.