Exceptions to the 12 Months’ Service Requirement in Unfair Dismissal Claims

fair-dismissal-procedures

If you are unfairly dismissed and wish to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 you will need to have been employed continuously for 12 months.

If you do not have 12 months’ service you cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal if you cannot clear this hurdle.

That is the bad news; the good news is there are some important exceptions to this 12 months’ service requirement. Let’s take a look at them, shall we?

Exceptions to 12 Months’ Service Requirement

  1. Protected disclosure-if you are dismissed for having made a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures act 2014 you do not need 12 months’ service
  2. Discrimination-if you were dismissed on a discriminatory ground you will be able to bring a claim under the Employment Equality Acts without 12 months’ service
  3. Trade union-an employee who is dismissed for trade union membership or activity does not require 12 months’ service
  4. Pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding-any dismissal connected with these issues can be brought without 12 months’ service
  5. Maternity protection-any dismissal arising from the exercise of a maternity right does not need 12 months’ service
  6. Adoptive leave-any dismissal arising from the exercise of an adoptive leave right does not need 12 months’ service
  7. Parental leave and force majeure leave-12 months’ service is not required for unfair dismissal claims arising from these rights
  8. National Minimum Wage Act, 2000-any dismissal arising from the employee seeking to exercise rights under this act can be brought without 12 months’ service
  9. Carer’s Leave act-12 months’ continuous service is not required.

It is inevitable that if you bring a claim the employer may well argue that you do not have the necessary 12 months’ service and will deny that you were dismissed arising from any of the exceptions set out above.

Clearly, each case will be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances but you will need to be prepared for this argument and ready to put forward facts from which it can be inferred that your dismissal did arise from the exercise of one of the categories listed above.

Unfair Dismissal and Discriminatory Dismissal Are Parallel Claims-You Must Choose One or the Other

discriminatory dismissal

Did you know that you cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal at the same time?

They are considered to be parallel complaints and you will have to choose one or the other.

Let me clarify: section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1988 states

77.— F117 [ (1) A person who claims —

( a ) to have been discriminated against or subjected to victimisation,

( b ) to have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation,

( c ) not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term, or

( d ) not to be receiving a benefit under an equality clause,

in contravention of this Act may, subject to subsections (3) to (9) , seek redress by referring the case to the F118 [ Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission ] . ]

Thus, you are claiming that you have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation.

You can also bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals act, 1977 but you will have to choose which of these claims you will ultimately pursue.

Why? Because Section 101(4)(a) of the Employment Equality act, 1998 states:

(4A) (a) Where an employee refers —

(i) a case or claim under section 77 , and

(ii) a claim for redress under the Act of 1977,

to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission in respect of a dismissal, then, from the relevant date, the case or claim referred to in subparagraph (i) shall, in so far only as it relates to such dismissal, be deemed to have been withdrawn unless, before the relevant date, the employee withdraws the claim under the Act of 1977.

(b) In this subsection —

‘ Act of 1977 ’ means the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 ;

‘ dismissal ’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 1977;

‘ relevant date ’ means such date as may be prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. ]

This means that the discrimination based claim under the Employment Equality act, 1988 will be deemed to be withdrawn unless, 41 days after notification from the WRC, you withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals act, 1977.

Then, if you withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 your discrimination based claim under the Equality Act 1988 will go ahead.

If you don’t respond to the letter you receive from the WRC your claim under the Equality Act, 1988 will be deemed to be withdrawn and your unfair dismissal claim will be dealt with.

Section 101A of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 also prohibits parallel claims as follows:

101A. — Where the conduct of an employer constitutes both a contravention of Part III or IV and a contravention of either the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 or the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 , relief may not be granted to the employee concerned in respect of the conduct under both this Act and either of the said Acts.

Takeaway

If you bring claims to the Workplace Relations Commission sometimes your case will be straightforward, but sometimes you can easily fall into a technical or legal roadblock that may give you a nasty surprise.

You should always seek legal advice before you bring any claim as it is vital that you choose the correct cause of action. This cannot be remedied later on and I have seen some very silly, basic mistakes made by workers who ultimately make some simple but fatal mistakes and end up with nothing but heartache and disappointment.

2 Years’ Salary Awarded to Van Driver in Unfair Dismissal Case

the labour court

The maximum amount that can be awarded in an unfair dismissal case is 2 years’ remuneration (section 7, Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977).

I had never seen it awarded until this case, DHL Limited and Michael Coughlan, in which Mr. Coughlan was awarded €72,042.88 by way of compensation.

On the 28th July, 2017 the Labour Court handed down its decision in an appeal by the employer of the previous WRC adjudicator decision in the employee’s favour.

Background

The background to this case is an WRC adjudicator decision of 30th January, 2017 to decide that the employee should be reinstated in his job as a DHL driver.

Mr. Coughlan was employed as a van driver for 11 years until his summary dismissal in November, 2015.

Mr. Coughlan brought a claim for unfair dismissal to the WRC and the Adjudicator decided that the sanction imposed on Mr. Coughlan for an accident involving his vehicle was, “disproportionate having regard to all the circumstances.” She ordered reinstatement from September, 2016, when the WRC hearing was held.

Mr. Coughlan had previously accumulated written warnings, with a duration of 12 months each, for a couple of incidents involving his driving, but had no such incidents for 2 years prior to the incident in 19th October, 2015 which led to his dismissal. Mr. Coughlan, at the investigation meeting, admitted that he had misjudged the space available to him while passing another vehicle at the Cork Depot of the employer, and apologised. The damage to the van cost €2,500 to repair.

Following the disciplinary hearing the employer decided to dismiss Mr. Coughlan for gross misconduct involving the incident and damaging of company property. However, the employer’s letter advising him of his summary dismissal made reference to his previous driving problems, even though the last warning he had was expired for some time.

The employer, in its response to Mr. Coughlan’s appeal, relied on his previous record of driving incidents and written warnings, and gave evidence that DHL could not rely on the employee to drive the company vehicles safely and no other option, for example, redeployment, was open to the employer on this occasion.

The head of operations of the employer gave evidence that he felt it appropriate to take the previous driving record of Mr. Coughlan into account when hearing his appeal to the dismissal, notwithstanding that the previous warnings had expired.

Labour Court Findings

The Labour Court found that Mr. Coughlan was confronted with multiple accounts of misconduct at the disciplinary hearing, even though there was no reference to multiple allegations in the letter inviting him to the hearing. The letter only referred to his failure to protect and safeguard company property (the van).

The Labour Court also found that the employer’s decision to dismiss was motivated, partly, by what it saw as its duty of care to the public, and safety grounds; however, this was completely different from the subject matter contained in the letter inviting Mr. Coughlan to the disciplinary hearing as the letter stated he was being invited to meet the allegation of failure to protect and safeguard company property’.

The Labour Court also found that the grounds for summary dismissal without notice are very restricted, as can be seen from established jurisprudence in relation to dismissal, and a reading of Section 8 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, which requires very bad behaviour of such a kind that no reasonable employer could be expected to tolerate the continuance of the relationship for a minute longer.

As the allegation against Mr. Coughlan was that he failed to protect and safeguard company property it was held that this could not constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, that is, without notice.

The Labour Court also found that the employer did not give due consideration to alternative sanctions short of dismissal, nor did it allow him to offer to pay for the damage to the vehicle.

Furthermore it found that the employer gave too much weight to the previous incidents concerning Mr. Coughlan’s driving, and noted that his previous written warnings had expired by the time of this incident.

The Labour Court, for the reasons set out above, decided Mr. Coughlan was unfairly dismissed.

It took into account Mr. Coughlan’s attempts to mitigate his loss by seeking new employment: He told the Court that in the period since October 2015 he has applied for some 23 or 24 jobs without success. He applied for various roles including that of courier, driver, general operative, cleaner and store person. The Respondent was called to a small number of interviews by named employers but no job offer ensued from any of them.

The Labour Court awarded him €72,042.88 by way of compensation, being the equivalent of 104 weeks’ remuneration, which it viewed was the employee’s financial loss to date attributable to the dismissal.

You can read the full case here.

15 Things You Should Know About Unfair Dismissal in Ireland

unfair dismissal-1

Are you confused about the law surrounding unfair dismissal in Ireland?

Do you know the difference between unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal?

You should, you know, before embarking on an unfair dismissal claim.

Or, if you are an employer, defending such a claim.

In this piece, I am going to give you 15 things in plain language to help your understanding, and prevent you taking out your metaphorical gun and shooting yourself in not just one foot, but both feet.

Let’s get started, shall we?

  1. The important acts are the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, which you can access here, and the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993.
  2. Unfair dismissal arises when the employer terminates the employee’s employment; constructive dismissal arises when the employee resigns due to the conduct of the employer. In an unfair dismissal case the burden of proof is on the employer. In a constructive dismissal case this burden shifts from the employer to employee; this means the employee must prove he/she left the employment due to the conduct of the employer which he/she could no longer be expected to tolerate.
  3. You must bring your claim to the WRC (Workplace Relations Commission) within 6 months of the dismissal, unless you can show reasonable cause in which case you may be allowed 12 months by the WRC.
  4. Redress possible for the employee, if he/she wins, can be reinstatement, re-engagement, financial compensation.
  5. Financial compensation is financial loss incurred by him and attributable to the dismissal as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, subject to a maximum of 104 weeks remuneration. Receipt of social welfare payments by the employee is disregarded in calculating financial loss.
  6. An employee who is on probation, or who has less than 12 months’ employment is excluded from the rights afforded by the unfair dismissal legislation, although there are some limited exceptions, for example a dismissal arising from a discriminatory ground.
  7. A dismissal shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal, unless there are substantial grounds for it.
  8. A dismissal will not be an unfair dismissal if it arises from one of the following: conduct, performance, redundancy, the employee being in breach of the law in order to continue in his position (eg loss of driving licence if it was essential to hold one to do the job).
  9. An employer must give an employee a written statement of the procedure to be used in dismissing him within 28 days of commencement of employment.
  10. You can also go to the Civil Courts with a common law claim of wrongful dismissal, but you cannot do both-you must choose between the WRC or the Civil Courts. A wrongful dismissal claim is basically a breach of contract claim, for example your contract of employment provided for 1 month’s notice and you only received 1 week’s notice. This is a clear breach of contract and allows you to go to the Civil Courts and sue for breach of contract/wrongful dismissal.
  11. If an employer is going to dismiss on the grounds of competence he should give the employee clear notice of the shortcomings, and sufficient time to improve. A performance improvement plan (PIP) is recommended, and I would recommend that this lasts for 6 months, or thereabouts.
  12. Even if an employee is to be dismissed he/she should be afforded fair procedures and natural justice prior to termination, unless situation if one of gross misconduct which may justify a summary dismissal. Here are 6 steps which should be taken in any fair disciplinary procedure.
  13. An employee on long term sick leave can be dismissed on the grounds of incapacity, that is, he/she is unable to fulfil the contract of employment. There are recommended procedures, however, before an employer should terminate an employee on long term sick leave.
  14. A decision making body such as the WRC or Labour Court will apply 2 well known tests to decide wither the employee was justified in leaving the employment in a constructive dismissal case.
  15. Being dismissed from your job can seem like the end of the world at the time. But some of the most famous, successful people were fired from their job at one time or another. Here is 10 ultra-successful people who were dismissed from their employment.

“I don’t know whether I have a case or not”

“I don’t know whether I should resign and forget about it”

Get professional advice before you take an action that you might regret later.

My Single Best Tip for Employees

 

stressed employee

Are you an employee?

Are you experiencing difficulties in work?

Employees contact me every day with a wide range of problems.

These can include issues to do with bullying, rest breaks, disputes about statutory leave entitlements, harassment, working extra hours and not getting paid, unfair reprimands, threats-implied or express-of dismissal, not being given a written contract of employment, and so on.

One question I always ask, though, is “when did you commence employment?”

Because the protection that you get from the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires you to have 12 months’ continuous service:

 

2.—(1) This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:
(a)    an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him

There are exceptions to this one year’s continuous service requirement, for example a pregnancy related dismissal, a protected disclosure related dismissal, or a dismissal connected with trade union membership.

Without the required 12 months’ continuous employment you are vulnerable to being dismissed with little or no recourse to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. And quitting and bringing a claim for constructive dismissal is not open to you either.

I have heard some appalling stories from employees, stories of extremely poor or unfair treatment they have suffered.

Stories of people leaving a job to take up employment with another employer on the strength of attractive, but illusory, promises made by a new employer.

But if it does not work out, and the employee does not have 12 months’ continuous service, the options to right the wrong or pursue a claim are exceptionally limited.

My best tip for employees, then?

My single best tip for employees is to do your very best to get 12 months’ service under your belt in the job.

You may have complaints, problems, grievances in the first 10/11 months but you have a choice to make in relation to raising those grievances-do you do it in the first 12 months and raise your head above the parapet?

Or do you bite your tongue and wait until a year has elapsed?

Sometimes, you can win a battle and lose the war.

If you are suffering badly from bullying or harassment in the workplace it will be very difficult to endure that simply to get 12 months’ employment, and I am not recommending you do.

You must look after your health and wellbeing as your first priority. Your health truly is your wealth.

But if you have a minor grievance, or grievances, with aspects of your job, consider whether you can endure until you have 12 months’ employment behind you, and then ventilate your issues through the appropriate channels internally. These policies and procedures should be set out in the staff handbook.

Because if you raise a lot of grievances before the one year mark, you run the risk of the employer deciding you are not “the right fit” for the company, and having your employment terminated without being able to use the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and related legislation to vindicate your rights.

You may also be on probation, which allows the employer to terminate you for good, bad, or no reason.

In fact, there are circumstances where I would advise the employer not to give any reason for a termination.

Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of employment related acts on the statute books which do not require you to have a minimum period of employment.

For example, the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994, the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 etc.

But not being able to use the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 is a huge setback if you have lost your job. Not only does it provide for up to two years’ salary as compensation, it also provides for reinstatement or reengagement in the employment as potential outcomes in a successful claim.

Bonus Tip for Employees

My bonus tip for you is not to resign from your job hastily or without taking legal advice.

If you resign you may be able to bring a claim for constructive dismissal.

But this is a much harder case to win than one for unfair dismissal because the burden of proof to win your case shifts from the employer to you as employee.

If you resign too quickly you are also ruling out the possibility of a negotiated exit and getting a suitable reference. The employer, once he takes advice, may be happy to give you a reference and some form of settlement payment in return for your undertaking, by way of a signed agreement, not to pursue any claims arising from the employment.

Conclusion

Take advice from someone who has a good understanding and knowledge of employment law before you make rash decisions.

Because you do not want to find out after the fact that your legal options are extremely limited.