Employment Laws in Ireland: Analysis and Conclusions

This article discusses and analyzes the employment laws prevalent in Ireland and provides conclusions that can be inferred from specific situations. It also emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures in dismissing an employee.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAWS
Employment Laws
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EMPLOYMENT LAWS
The following paragraphs will discuss and analyse the laws prevalent in Ireland relating to
employment laws. It will also strive to analyse the given situations in the light of these laws.
These paragraphs will also provide for the conclusions that may be inferred from these
situations.
Question 1
The employment laws relating to Ireland does not protect the employees against unfair
dismissal. In the instant situation, the issue is whether Simon falls within the four categories
of workers who are not eligible to sue for unfair dismissal. The following paragraphs will
discuss and analyse the laws prevalent in Ireland relating to employment laws. It will also
strive to analyse the instant situation in the light of these laws. These paragraphs will also
provide for a conclusion that may be inferred from the situation.
In Ireland, the laws relating to employment does not provide protection to the employee
against the dismissals, which are unfairly effected. However, it extends a right to the
employees to challenge the dismissal on the grounds of fairness. This right has been incurred
by them once the dismissal has been effected and not before the dismissal.
However, there are certain categories of employees who are not entitled to bring an action
against their employers challenging their dismissal. The employer is justified in dismissing
their employees on certain grounds and the fairness of such a dismissal cannot be questioned
by the employee.
In case the employee has been incompetent in performing the job that he has been hired
for, the employer is justified in dismissing such an employee and the employee does not incur
a right to challenge such a dismissal. However, in such an event, the employer needs to
provide the employee with a fair warning about the same and a chance to the employee to

2EMPLOYMENT LAWS
improve before effecting such a dismissal. The same can be illustrated with the case of
Richards v. H Williams and Co Ltd 1979.1
The employer is also justified in dismissing the employee in case the employee has been
irregular or incapable of continuing with working with the employer owing to illness on a
regular basis. In case, the employee have been absent from work on a regular basis, the
employer must provide the employee with a fair chance to employee to improve his
attendance before such a dismissal. The same can be illustrated with the case of McElhinney
v Templemore Co-operative Society (1982).2
The employer is justified in dismissing his employee in case the employee has committed
a gross misconduct while performing his duty as an employee. This is a valid ground for
dismissal and the employee so dismissed does have the right to bring an action against the
employer on being dismissed on such a ground. However, the employer must carry out an
investigation regarding the alleged misconduct and provide the employee with a fair chance
of being heard. The same can be illustrated with the case of British Home Stores v
Burchell[1978] IRLR 3793.
The employer is also entitled to effect a dismissal in relation to an employee in case the
employee has indulged in an act of competition against the employer or has been acting in a
way which violates the interest of the employer. The same can be illustrated with the case of
Donoghue v Carroll Group Distributors Ltd (1982)4.
In the present situation, Simon has indulged into a fight with the candidate in order to stop
him from hurting other people in the office. In doing so, Simon has thrown himself upon the
candidate. It can be contended that Simon has the option of informing the police to handle the
1 Richards v. H Williams and Co Ltd 1979.
2 McElhinney v Templemore Co-operative Society (1982).
3 British Home Stores v Burchell[1978] IRLR 379.
4 Donoghue v Carroll Group Distributors Ltd (1982).

3EMPLOYMENT LAWS
matter. Simon was not justified in using such an excess force upon the candidate and this can
be treated as a misconduct on the part of Simon. However, the employers needs to provide
Simon with a chance of presenting his side before effecting the dismissal on the ground of
misconduct.
Simon falls within four categories of workers who are not eligible to sue for unfair
dismissal.
Question 2
The employment laws prevalent in Ireland does not protect the employees against unfair
dismissal but it provides the employees with a right to claim damages from the employer in
case the dismissal has been effected unfairly. However, the employer dismissing an employee
needs to follow a procedure while effecting the dismissal. The laws prevailing in Ireland
requires the employer to follow a fair set of procedures in dismissing an employee. In this
present situation, the issue is whether Simon has been treated fairly by his employer while
effecting his dismissal. The following paragraphs will discuss and analyse the laws prevalent
in Ireland relating to employment relationship. It will also strive to analyse the instant
situation in the light of these laws. These paragraphs will also provide for a conclusion that
may be inferred from the situation.
An employer is justified in dismissing an employee under certain grounds mentioned in
the employment laws prevailing in Ireland. In case the employee has been incompetent in
performing his duties for which he has been hired initially, the employer is justified in
dismissing such an employee, however an ample amount of chance should be given to the
employee to improve himself. The employer is also justified in dismissing an employee in
case the employee is not adequately qualified for the job he has been performing in the
company. An incapacity of the employee in performing the job he has been hired to perform,

4EMPLOYMENT LAWS
owing to illness, which might lead to absence, is also a valid ground for the employer to
dismiss an employee. An employer is also justified in terminating an employee, in case the
employee has been indulged in any conduct, which amounts to misbehaviour. A dismissal
will also amount to an unfair one in case the employee has been competing with the business
of the employer.
In case the employee has been indulged in the commission of a misconduct, the employer
might terminate the employee and such a termination will be a fair one. In the case of Hornal
v Neuberger Products Ltd CA [1957] 1 QB 2475, it was held that the employer must furnish
the proof of such a misconduct in terminating the employee on the grounds of misconduct.
Section 13 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 20056 contains provisions
relating to the duties that are imposed upon the employees. An employee has the duty to
ensure that his actions does not pose any threat to the safety and health of other people and
himself in the present in the workplace. The employees are also required to avoid any
behaviour that is improper and is likely to endanger others or themselves.
In the event of a gross misconduct committed by an employee, the employer is justified in
terminating his employment. Such a dismissal will be a fair one and is often referred to as
summary dismissal. However, in case of summary dismissal, the employer is required to
effect the dismissal following a procedure. This procedure includes the serving of a fair
notice upon the employer and providing the employee with a fair chance of being heard. In
the case of Linda Magill v Tomkins Limited (in receivership) t/a The Grand Hotel (2014) UD
1665/20127, the employer has been held liable for not following the fair procedure in
dismissing the employee on the grounds of misconduct. The following paragraph will discuss
the steps to be taken in effecting a dismissal.
5 Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA [1957] 1 QB 247
6 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005
7 Linda Magill v Tomkins Limited (in receivership) t/a The Grand Hotel (2014) UD 1665/2012

5EMPLOYMENT LAWS
Firstly, the employer, considering the termination of an employee, on the grounds of
misconduct committed by the employee must provide the employee with a verbal warning.
The employee whose misconduct is in question needs to be given a warning about the
misconduct he has committed and providing him with the reasons for which the termination
of his employment is in question. The employee will be given a chance to respond to the
verbal warning and furnish explanation of the misconduct he has committed and present his
view on the reason for which his dismissal would not be justified. The verbal warnings will
be recorded in the file of the employee. In the case of Edel Heffernan v Pfizer Nutritionals
(2014) UD 2439/20118, the employer was held liable for his failure to provide the employee
with a fair notice of his misconduct resulting the termination of his employment.
Secondly, the verbal warning, given to the employee, will be followed by a formal written
warning and final warning. The objective of the warning will be to make the employee aware
of the termination of the employment that the employer is considering and the reason for
which the termination is being considered. It will provide the employee with a chance to
present his explanation regarding the misconduct that he has been alleged to have committed.
The employer needs to provide the employee with a fair chance to present his side of the
events that led to his termination of employment. The serving of the warning of such a
misconduct upon the employee provides the employee with a chance to respond to the same.
In the case of G4S Secure Solutions (Ireland) Limited v Eric Onourah (2012) UD 279/20119,
the court held the dismissal to be unfair as the employer failed to serve upon the employee
with a written notice of the dismissal mentioning its reason.
Thirdly, the employer must arrange for a disciplinary meeting for the employee. The
employee must be given a fair warning in the disciplinary meeting. The employer must
discuss with the employee in such a meeting the conduct of the employee that has made the
8 Edel Heffernan v Pfizer Nutritionals (2014) UD 2439/2011
9 G4S Secure Solutions (Ireland) Limited v Eric Onourah (2012) UD 279/2011

6EMPLOYMENT LAWS
employer to consider his dismissal. In the case of John Casey Limited and A Worker (2005)
CD/05/59610, the employer was held liable to pay compensation to the employee as the
employer failed to arrange a disciplinary meeting with the employee before effecting a
summary dismissal.
Fourthly, in case the employee fails to provide a valid explanation for the misconduct
committed by him, the employer may impose a suspension upon the employee. Such a
suspension may be with or without pay based upon the circumstance of the case. The time
period for which the suspension will continue depends upon the discretion of the employer.
During the continuity of the suspension period, the employer needs to arrange for an
investigation regarding the misconduct that has been committed by the employee and which
has led to the termination of his contract to be considered. The investigations are important in
establishing the validity of the misconduct of the employee and any justification that might
have arrived, which shall relieve the employee from being dismissed. The importance of the
investigation regarding the conduct of the employee during the consideration of termination
has been explained in the case of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 2311.
Fifthly, if the result of the investigation points towards the misconduct of the employee to
be reckless and no explanation can be deciphered mitigating the same, the employer has the
option of effecting a summary dismissal of the employee for the misconduct committed by
him. The employee once served upon with such a dismissal will not be able to provide any
explanation or seek any damages from the employer. However, in the event of such a
dismissal being effected, the employee must be given a prior notice of such a dismissal. The
employer will be liable to provide the employee with an adequate notice period before
10 John Casey Limited and A Worker (2005) CD/05/596
11 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23

7EMPLOYMENT LAWS
effecting such a dismissal. The notice period will be fixed in accordance with the provisions
of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 196312.
The employee so dismissed will have the right to pursue the court to hear the case and
prefer an appeal to the decision of the employer in dismissing him. In the case of C Lo Sterzo
v London Borough of Lewisham EAT (EAT/1223/99)13, the employee challenged his
summary dismissal on the grounds of the investigation carried out in that context to be
inadequate. The employee thus preferring an appeal has the right to be represented by
appropriate person who can present his case in the court. In deciding on the validity of the
dismissal the court will collect evidence and consider the evidences and the statements
provided by both the employer and the employee.
In the present case, Simon has indulged into a fight with a candidate. Though the
involvement of Simon with the candidate was to prevent the candidate from hurting other
employees of the office but Simon also has the option of informing the police or seek help
from the other person empowered to deal with such situations. The conduct of Simon in
indulging into a fight with the candidate instead of availing help was an excess usage of
power that has been committed by Simon. This has the effect of jeopardizing the safety of the
employees and the reputation of the employer. This conduct of Simon can be regarded as a
misconduct and the employer will be justified in dismissing him.
However, the employer in this case has arranged a meeting with Simon and declared a
dismissal with immediate effect. This would amount to unfair dismissal as the employer has
failed to follow the procedure that the employment laws requires him to follow while
effecting a dismissal. The employer in this case must have provided Simon with a fair
warning of the dismissal that he has been considering. A written notice to that effect needs to
12 The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1963.
13 C Lo Sterzo v London Borough of Lewisham EAT (EAT/1223/99)

8EMPLOYMENT LAWS
be provided to Simon informing him of the dismissal that has been considered. Such a notice
must contain the reason for which the alleged dismissal has been considered.
Simon needs to be provided with a fair scope of presenting his view on the alleged
misconduct and provide any justification that he might have in that context. The employer
need to arrange a disciplinary meeting with Simon where Simon will be given a fair chance
of being heard. In this case, the employer has arranged for a meeting with Simon but the
objective of the meeting was not to provide Simon with a fair chance of being heard. The
meeting was to inform Simon about the immediate termination of his employment. The
employer also failed to carry out an investigation in furtherance of the alleged misconduct.
This would amount to unfair dismissal. Therefore, it can be contended that the employer had
failed to comply with the fair procedure of dismissal while dealing with Simon. The
employer has failed to recognise the rights of the employee in case of dismissal. This points
out the failure of the employer to comply with the procedure of dismissal.
The employer has failed to treat Simon fairly while effecting his dismissal.
Question 3
The employment laws relating to Ireland does not protect the employees against unfair
dismissal. It provides the employee with a right to claim damages from the employer in case
the dismissal has been effected unfairly. In the present situation, the issue is that what
remedies are available to Simon in case he is successful in his action for unfair dismissal. The
following paragraphs will discuss and analyse the laws prevalent in Ireland relating to
employment laws. It will also strive to analyse the instant situation in the light of these laws.
These paragraphs will also provide for a conclusion that may be inferred from the situation.
In Ireland, the laws relating to employment does not provide protection to the employee
against the dismissals, which are unfairly effected. However, it extends a right to the

9EMPLOYMENT LAWS
employees to challenge the dismissal on the grounds of fairness. This right has been incurred
by them once the dismissal has been effected and not before the dismissal. There are certain
remedies that are available to an employee in case he is successful in proving the dismissal to
be unfairly effected. The Employment Rights Act 199614 contains provisions relating to the
remedies that are available to the employees who are subjected unfair dismissal. The
following paragraphs will discuss the various remedies that are available to an employee who
has been unfairly dismissed.
The first remedy that is available to an employee who has been unfairly dismissed is the
Reinstatement of the employee. Reinstatement implies the re-employment of the employee in
his initial position. In this remedy the employee will be entitled to recover all the arrear
payments that were due for the time being. This kind of remedy is considerably rare, but is a
possible remedy. In the case of Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins [2009] EWCA Civ
120215, the tribunal held the dismissal of Mr Chagger to be an unfair one and ordered for a
reinstatement for him back in the employment.
The second remedy that is available to an employee when subjected to unfair dismissal is
the re-engagement of the employee. Re-engagement implies a re-employment of an employee
in a different position than that he has been previously engaged in. In case the re-employment
of the employee in the same position is not convenient and the dismissal has been proved in
the court to be an unfair one, the court may order for the re-engagement of the employee. In
this kind of remedy the employee might not recover the arrear. Re-engagement may also not
ensure the employee to be re-employed with the same payment as he was previously being
paid. This kind of remedy of unfair dismissal is also very rare.
14 The Employment Rights Act 1996
15 Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins [2009] EWCA Civ 1202

10EMPLOYMENT LAWS
The third remedy that is available to an employee in case of being unfairly dismissed is a
compensation. This remedy has been provided in case of unfair dismissal to mitigate the
financial loss that the employee might suffer from the unfair dismissal. In case of unfair
dismissal the most important loss that an employee suffers is the financial loss and a support
mitigating the same will be of utmost concern. In providing a compensation to the employee
being unfairly dismissed, the court will consider the present and future losses that might
follow an unfair dismissal. The court will also take cognizance of any loss of pension or
statutory protection that the employee was entitled to receive. The court will also consider
any contribution that the employee has, which has led to the unfair dismissal.
Therefore, assuming that Simon is successful in his action for unfair dismissal, the main
remedies that may be available to him are Reinstatement, Re-engagement or Compensation.
Conclusion
Lastly, it can be concluded that Simon falls within four categories of workers who are not
eligible to sue for unfair dismissal. The employer has failed to treat Simon fairly while
effecting his dismissal. Assuming that Simon is successful in his action for unfair dismissal,
the main remedies that may be available to him are Reinstatement, Re-engagement or
Compensation.

11EMPLOYMENT LAWS
Bibliography
British Home Stores v Burchell[1978] IRLR 379.
C Lo Sterzo v London Borough of Lewisham EAT (EAT/1223/99)
Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins [2009] EWCA Civ 1202
Donoghue v Carroll Group Distributors Ltd (1982).
Edel Heffernan v Pfizer Nutritionals (2014) UD 2439/2011
G4S Secure Solutions (Ireland) Limited v Eric Onourah (2012) UD 279/2011
Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA [1957] 1 QB 247
John Casey Limited and A Worker (2005) CD/05/596
Linda Magill v Tomkins Limited (in receivership) t/a The Grand Hotel (2014) UD 1665/2012
McElhinney v Templemore Co-operative Society (1982).
Richards v. H Williams and Co Ltd 1979
Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23
The Employment Rights Act 1996
The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1963.