Unfair dismissal, or not?

LegacyUser

I had been working in a job part time (24 hours per week) for 23 months.

Multiple times I had been given praise for my work and was never told I was doing anything wrong or needed to improve in any way. However, I often had to say no to extra hours that would have been for helping out people in another department.

I was told on a Wednesday evening that I was no longer needed and that Friday would be my last day. Boss told me this was nothing to do with me or my performance, but that they needed to make cuts and my job was not one of the most necessary ones.

It left me with suddenly having no income (can't sign on).

Basically, was I wronged or was it okay for them to let me go in that way? My contract states that if I wanted to leave I needed to give them one weeks notice.

ibarelycare

Does your contract state how much notice your employer has to give you? The minimum they must give you by law is 1 week (if you've been there less than 2 years). If they have only given you 2 days then they must pay you in lieu of the remainder of your notice period. If your contract states that they must give you longer than a week's notice then they have to go with the notice period in the contract. You are also entitled to be paid for unused holidays accrued to the date of the end of your notice period.

Your employer will have to show that a redundancy situation exists for your dismissal to be deemed fair. If they genuinely are making cuts, then it could be a redundancy, but this is something that should be investigated by you. Do you know if they have a habit of letting people go just before they get to the 2-year mark?

Would be a good idea to have a read up on redundancy and fair grounds for dismissal.

You should give the Workplace Relations Commission a call for advice - 1890 80 80 90.

_Brian

Your not long enough there to be entitled to redundancy, and with less then 2 years employment grounds for dismissal arent really an issue here as they gave a perfectly valid reason.. Is there anyone doing the very same job as you who was hired after you ?? if so maybe you could argue they should have gone first..

You were entitled to a weeks notice and should receive pay in liu for that.

Why can you not sign on ??

LegacyUser

Thanks for the replies.

My contract does not state how much notice they must give me, just how much I must give them.

I don't think the company has a history of letting people go before they are there 2 years.

There was no one doing the same job I was, but they gave my responsibilities to another employee.

I can't sign on because I am in college.

ibarelycare

_Brian wrote: »

Your not long enough there to be entitled to redundancy, and with less then 2 years employment grounds for dismissal arent really an issue here as they gave a perfectly valid reason.. Is there anyone doing the very same job as you who was hired after you ?? if so maybe you could argue they should have gone first..

You were entitled to a weeks notice and should receive pay in liu for that.

Why can you not sign on ??

She's not entitled to a redundancy payment, that's separate. Given that the employee is there over 12 months (this is the normal minimum length of service required to claim unfair dismissal), there must be grounds for fair dismissal e.g. redundancy, misconduct, etc. In this case the employer is claiming that they can't keep her on due to cutbacks, so a redundancy situation. If the employee decides to lodge a claim the employer will have to prove that the position WAS made redundant, and will have to stand over their selection process, etc.

Either way OP, you're in the very least entitled to your week's notice period, and if you have any doubts over what your employer is telling you, you should absolutely get on to the WRC.

ibarelycare

Kaiyara wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

My contract does not state how much notice they must give me, just how much I must give them.

I don't think the company has a history of letting people go before they are there 2 years.

There was no one doing the same job I was, but they gave my responsibilities to another employee.

I can't sign on because I am in college.

If it doesn't state how much notice they need to give you, then it goes by the law, which is 1 week. So you are entitled to either work until a week after they gave you notice, or to be paid up until the last day of your notice period. You are also entitled to holiday pay accrued up until the last day of the notice period (i.e. one week after they told you that they were letting you go).

If it is true that your responsibilities are being given to another existing employee, and if they don't hire another employee to replace you, then this is a valid redundancy situation and therefore not unfair dismissal. If you are in doubt as to whether it is true or not, ring the WRC.

Either way you're still entitled to what is set out in my first paragraph.



Edit: You said you're there 23 months...is it 23 months exactly? If it was 23 months and 3 weeks, for example, then your week's notice period could push you to the 2 year mark and therefore you'd be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. On what date did you start working there?

davo10

ibarelycare wrote: »

If it doesn't state how much notice they need to give you, then it goes by the law, which is 1 week. So you are entitled to either work until a week after they gave you notice, or to be paid up until the last day of your notice period. You are also entitled to holiday pay accrued up until the last day of the notice period (i.e. one week after they told you that they were letting you go).

If it is true that your responsibilities are being given to another existing employee, and if they don't hire another employee to replace you, then this is a valid redundancy situation and therefore not unfair dismissal. If you are in doubt as to whether it is true or not, ring the WRC.

Either way you're still entitled to what is set out in my first paragraph.



Edit: You said you're there 23 months...is it 23 months exactly? If it was 23 months and 3 weeks, for example, then your week's notice period could push you to the 2 year mark and therefore you'd be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. On what date did you start working there?

Are you sure about that last point?

Avatar MIA

davo10 wrote: »

Are you sure about that last point?

If given notice of termination a week before the 2 years with one week's statutory notice I think the company would have to pay the employee a week's wage, but would not be considered employed for the two years. They would be if the employer insisted they actually worked the last week. Then they would be entitled to 3 weeks pay under redundancy rules.

ibarelycare

Avatar MIA wrote: »

If given notice of termination a week before the 2 years with one week's statutory notice I think the company would have to pay the employee a week's wage, but would not be considered employed for the two years. They would be if the employer insisted they actually worked the last week. Then they would be entitled to 3 weeks pay under redundancy rules.

This is incorrect. Under both the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Redundancy Payments Act, the employee's termination date is considered the date on which the contract would have ended if the employee had worked their notice period in full.

So redundancy and holidays must be calculated up to the end of the notice period, regardless of whether the employee is working or has been paid PILON.