In the recent decision of Maria Inmaculada De La Torre Ruiz v Hamilton UK Services Limited (ADJ-00049851), the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) found that the dismissal of the Complainant without cause was unfair. She was awarded maximum compensation in the amount of €145,122, equivalent to two years’ remuneration.

Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Financial Accountant from 6th July 2021 until the Respondent terminated her employment on 27th July 2023. The Complainant was paid three months in lieu of notice. She submitted that her dismissal was unfair. The Respondent accepted that the dismissal was effected without cause.

Decision: In circumstances where the Respondent accepted that dismissal had been effected without cause, the Adjudicator, Breiffni O’Neill, found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed from her employment. Compensation was deemed to be the most appropriate redress for the Complainant.

Calculation of Remuneration

The Adjudicator first assessed the Complainant’s remuneration. At the time of her dismissal, the Complainant earned a base salary of €63,000 per year, she received an employer pension contribution of 12.5%, namely €7,875 per annum. The Complainant also submitted that the Respondent paid her membership fee of €636 to Chartered Accountants Ireland and also paid fees amounting to €1,050 for continuous professional development. All of these contributions were accepted as constituting remuneration for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. However, the Complainant’s unvested VAP share awards and her discretionary annual bonus were found not to form part of her remuneration.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant’s total weekly remuneration for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts was €1,395.40. Her annual remuneration inclusive of her base salary, pension contribution and annual contributions to professional membership fees and to professional development therefore totalled €72,561. Accordingly, the Adjudicator found that the maximum compensation the WRC could award was €145,122.

Calculation of Financial Loss Attributable to the Dismissal

In assessing the Complainant’s total financial loss attributable to her dismissal, the Adjudicator first considered the period between the date of her dismissal (27th July 2023) and the date of the WRC hearing (7th January 2025). The Adjudicator calculated her loss during that period as follows:

• 27th July 2023 to 15th January 2024: Following her dismissal on 27th July 2023, the Complainant was unemployed for 24 weeks until 15th January 2024. The Adjudicator calculated the total loss for this period to be €33,490.

• 15th January 2024 to 11th October 2024: The Complainant secured employment on a 9-month fixed-term contract during which she earned €48,900. The Adjudicator calculated that her remuneration would have been €54,421 for this period if she had remained in the Respondent’s employment, thus the Complainant’s financial loss for this period amounted to €5,521.

• 12th October 2024 to 7th January 2025: At the date of the hearing on 7th January 2025, the Complainant had not secured employment subsequent to the completion of her fixed-term contract in October. When deciding whether or not her financial loss continued after the completion of her fixed-term contract, the Adjudicator referred to Courtaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Moosa [1984] IRLR 43 and noted that a complainant’s loss only stops when further permanent employment is secured. As the Complainant was still unemployed on the date of the hearing, the Adjudicator found that her losses were ongoing. Her loss for the thirteen-week period between the end of her fixed-term contract and the date of the hearing amounted to €18,140.

The Adjudicator then proceeded to consider the Complainant’s estimated prospective financial loss following the date of the WRC hearing.

The Adjudicator accepted the Complainant’s position that because she had been dismissed without cause, it had been difficult and would continue to be difficult for her to secure a new role as she was unable to justify or explain the reason(s) for the termination of her most recent employment, because the Respondent had not provided her with any reason. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had made “extensive attempts” to secure alternative permanent employment in the almost 18-month period following her termination.

He referred to London Underground v Edwards [1998] IRLR 364, a decision of the Court of Appeal in England (which was in turn applied in the decision of the Irish Supreme Court in Benedict McGowan and Ors v The Labour Court and Ors [2010] 21 ELR 277), in which it was stated that expert tribunals “do not sit in blinkers and are entitled to make use of their own knowledge and experience in the industrial field”. Drawing on his experience as a human resources professional, the Adjudicator, estimated that it would take her at least a further 18 months for the Complainant to secure a permanent role elsewhere. He therefore estimated her prospective loss from the hearing date to be €108,841.

Therefore, the Adjudicator found that the total financial loss attributable to the Complainant’s dismissal was €165,992.

Calculation of Award and Mitigation of Loss

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant had not sufficiently mitigated her loss, and that this should be considered in calculating any award. The Adjudicator stated that focusing solely on her inability to mitigate her loss would be “wholly inappropriate” given that the manner in which the Respondent had dismissed her had significantly impacted her job prospects. Noting that the Respondent accepted that there was not a “scintilla of procedural fairness” in dismissing the Complainant, he referred to the decision of the Adjudicator in ADJ-00032667 where, in calculating the award of compensation, she stated as follows:

“in considering compensation, regard must be had to all of the subsection of Section 7-and the tests are not confined to the efforts of the former employee-or the Complainant in this case. In circumstances where the Respondent is found not to have met the tests set out in subsections (c) and (d) …. and the Complainant made no contribution to the decision to dismiss her under (a) (b) or (f) It would be wholly unjustified to penalise the Complainant solely for a conclusion that she did not make a sufficient effort of mitigate her losses where the balance of unfairness and failure to comply with the terms of Section 7 as a whole lie squarely with the Respondent.”

The Adjudicator was also satisfied that the Complainant had made sufficient efforts to mitigate her loss and noted that she had submitted evidence of applying for “hundreds of new roles”. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant had unreasonably refused a small number of these roles on the basis that they were too far from her home and that the travel would have been too significant. However, the Adjudicator was satisfied that it was reasonable for the Complainant to refuse these roles.

The Adjudicator found that there was no basis for a reduction in compensation in the present case. However, he acknowledged that the maximum compensation the WRC could award under the Unfair Dismissals Acts was capped at 104 weeks’ remuneration. Therefore, the Complainant was awarded the maximum award €145,122.

Takeaway for Employers:

This decision is a reminder to employers considering terminating an employee’s employment on a “no fault” basis that there is significant risk in doing so, particularly where an employee has over a year’s service. So called “no fault” dismissals by their very nature contravene the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals legislation, and, while they may reduce the risk of High Court injunctive action, legal advice ought to be obtained to ensure that employers appreciate the risks.

This decision highlights the level of awards that may be made and the WRC’s disdain for dismissals effected on this basis. The decision provides an interesting, detailed analysis of the calculation of financial loss, particularly in respect of estimating prospective future loss in circumstances where a complainant is unemployed at the date of hearing. Employers should note the importance attributed to the impact that the absence of a reason for dismissal can have on a complainant’s ability to secure new employment; in this case the Adjudicator found that it could reasonably take the Complainant a further 18 months to find new employment.

Link - https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/march/adj-00049851.html

Authors – Lia Berkery & Jenny Wakely

29th April 2025

Anne O’Connell

Solicitors

19-22 Lower Baggot Street

Dublin 2.

www.aocsolicitors.ie