{"id":54790,"date":"2026-02-09T17:07:45","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T17:07:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=legal_developments&p=54790"},"modified":"2026-02-09T17:08:29","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T17:08:29","slug":"adjudicator-includes-lump-sum-from-pension-in-constructive-dismissal-compensation-award","status":"publish","type":"legal_developments","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/thought-leadership\/adjudicator-includes-lump-sum-from-pension-in-constructive-dismissal-compensation-award\/","title":{"rendered":"Adjudicator Includes \u201clump sum\u201d from Pension in Constructive Dismissal Compensation Award"},"content":{"rendered":"

Karen McHale v Mayo University Hospital (ADJ-00053715) <\/em>involved a constructive dismissal complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 \u2013 2015. The Complainant claimed that she was left with no option but to resign from her employment due to the Respondent\u2019s treatment of her when a complaint was made against her under the Respondent\u2019s grievance procedure. Her complaint was upheld and she was awarded compensation, including a lump sum in respect of her pension.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Facts: <\/strong>A complaint was made against the Complainant by one of her colleagues following their return from leave. The Complainant\u2019s line manager required the Complainant to carry out the return-to-work meeting with that employee. During that meeting, the employee mentioned to the Complainant that he had made a complaint about her, of which he assumed she was aware. The Complainant had not received a copy of the complaint and was not aware that a complaint had been made against her. She asked the Respondent to provide her with a copy of the complaint, but they did not, and she was directed to attend mediation in an attempt to resolve the complaint. When she attended the mediation, the mediator was surprised that the Complainant had not been given details of the complaint or provided with a copy of it. Further issues arose in respect of reporting lines, and the Complainant submitted that she was bypassed in the reporting structure. She went on certified sick leave, still without having been provided with a copy of the complaint. The Complainant was offered alternative positions that were not suitable, and she felt that she was bullied into accepting one of those positions.<\/p>\n

The Complainant ultimately resigned. She did not submit a grievance before doing so, because she felt that she was unable to rely on the Respondent\u2019s grievance procedure given the lack of fairness afforded to her in respect of the complaint made against her under that same procedure.<\/p>\n

The Respondent sought to defend the claim on the basis that the Complainant had failed to exhaust the internal options available to resolve her grievances prior to resigning from her employment. It did not dispute that the Complainant had not been provided with a copy of the complaint against her before commencement of an investigation into the complaint and before commencement of the mediation process.<\/p>\n

Decision: <\/strong>The Adjudicator, Conor Stokes, upheld the Complainant\u2019s claim. He referred to the decision in Re: Haughey <\/em>[1971] IR 217 and the fundamental principles set out in that decision, which included the entitlement to be provided with the case being made out against you, and having the opportunity to rebut that case. He found that those principles did not appear to have been included in the Respondent\u2019s grievance procedure, and were not afforded to the Complainant in respect of the complaint made against her. He was satisfied that a reasonable employer would regard the grievance procedure as flawed, and would not (and should not) expect or require her to have engaged with that flawed grievance procedure prior to her resignation. He found that she had been constructively dismissed.<\/p>\n

What is particularly interesting about this decision, is the Adjudicator\u2019s calculation of the Complainant\u2019s financial loss and the award of compensation made by him. Having found that compensation was the most appropriate remedy, the Adjudicator assessed the Complainant\u2019s financial loss, noting her loss of a pension entitlement\/lump sum as a result of the termination of her employment. He requested and obtained post-hearing submissions regarding financial loss and mitigation. From that information, the Adjudicator noted that the pension \u201cbuilt up\u201d by the Complainant was preserved for her to \u201cdraw down\u201d upon retirement, but he noted that that did not appear to be the case in respect of the Complainant\u2019s pension lump sum of approximately \u20ac41,831. The Complainant had about 17 years left to qualify for a full pension. The Adjudicator included a lump sum of \u20ac41,831 in his award of compensation, reflecting the loss of this pension lump sum.<\/p>\n

Takeaway for Employers:<\/strong> The inclusion of a figure specifically relating to loss of a pension lump sum in an award of compensation is very interesting. It is not clear from the decision, but it would seem more likely that the Complainant\u2019s pension was a defined benefit pension as opposed to a defined contribution pension. The inclusion of such a loss in calculating the Complainant\u2019s financial loss is nonetheless an interesting approach, and it will be interesting to see if it is followed in subsequent decisions and\/or if a similar approach might be taken in circumstances where a complainant\u2019s pension is a defined contribution scheme rather than a defined benefit scheme.<\/p>\n

Link \u2013 https:\/\/www.workplacerelations.ie\/en\/cases\/2025\/november\/adj-00053715.html<\/a><\/p>\n

26th<\/sup> January 2026<\/p>\n

Author \u2013 Jenny Wakely <\/em><\/p>\n

AOC Solicitors<\/p>\n

19-22 Baggot Street Lower<\/p>\n

Dublin 2<\/p>\n

www.aocsolicitors.ie<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-54790","legal_developments","type-legal_developments","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments\/54790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/legal_developments"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}