Company boss awarded €180k after being dismissed without notice via videocall
Seán McCárthaigh
A former senior executive of a Dublin-based company, who was fired without notice via a videocall after almost a year in the job, has been awarded €180,000 in compensation.
The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Hed Unity Limited had unfairly dismissed David Haran in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
The WRC heard that Mr Haran was employed as the company’s chief of staff for just under a year until he was dismissed without notice on April 14th, 2022.
He was on a salary of €160,000 together with annual bonus of between 10 per cent and 50 per cent of his base salary together with other benefits. His bonus for his first year was due to be €80,000.
Hed Unity failed to engage with the WRC in relation to Mr Haran’s complaint and did not attend a related hearing last month and was not legally represented.
Mr Haran told the WRC that he was dismissed by a video call on a “no fault” basis while he was out on sick leave.
He said it was indicated that certain payments would be made to him before April 27th, 2022.
Mr Haran said he was paid his salary for the month of April 2022 as well as a payment of €20,000 directly into his bank account which was not accompanied by any payslip or explanation as to what it represented.
He gave evidence of not being able to find alternative work until September 2022 at the lower salary of €85,000 per annum.
In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Michael MacNamee, noted that the complainant’s contract of employment provided for a notice period of three months which meant his effective date of dismissal was in July 2022.
The WRC took into account that a dismissal letter stated that he would receive several payments including a sum of €40,000 in relation to his entitlement to three months’ salary.
Mr MacNamee said the sum of €20,000 received by Mr Haran represented only half of what he was due in lieu of notice if that is what it was meant to represent.
However, he ruled that the unexplained and unsolicited payment did not constitute a payment such as to extinguish his contractual notice entitlement.
The WRC heard that the claim for unfair dismissal was not received within the normal six-month time limit.
However, it noted he had commenced a similar claim against Xantic Motion Limited within that timeframe as it was the company identified on his contract of employment as his employer.
Mr MacNamee ruled that the timeframe for lodging the complaint could be extended as it was most unusual that Mr Haran’s contract was with one company but that his payslips were issued in the name of another.
The WRC found on the complainant’s uncontroverted evidence that he was unfairly dismissed.
It noted that he had suffered a weekly loss in earnings of €1,442 which resulted in a cumulative loss to date of over €252,000.
In fixing the level of award, Mr MacNamee took into account that Mr Haran acknowledged that he was earning about the market rate.
The WRC official said it suggested that his remuneration may have been unaffordable to his employer from the outset, given it appeared to have ceased trading.
Mr MacNamee said that even if Mr Haran had not been dismissed unfairly, there was a very real likelihood his employment would have been terminated lawfully by reason of redundancy or experienced a pay reduction.
He concluded that either way Mr Haran’s remuneration would not realistically have continued at €160,000 per annum and fixed the appropriate compensation level at €180,000.
