A Trinity College administrator who won an unfair dismissal claim has been denied an award for loss of earnings because she turned down a “much better paid” job offer while she was out of work.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered Dublin University, Trinity College Dublin, to pay former executive officer Kate Brennan €15,0000 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
College authorities decided Ms Brennan had failed her probation on 30 August 2023, less than a week before she had built up the full year’s service required to have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Because she was then asked to work out a full month’s notice, she then gained the right to pursue a complaint under the legislation, the tribunal concluded in a decision published today.
At a hearing last November, Trinity’s head of employment relations, Mary Leahy, had arguedthe tribunal lacked jurisdiction because Ms Brennan had received notice of termination before her first year was complete.
However, the college had accepted that if the WRC decided the minimum service requirement of the act was met, it would concede the dismissal was unfair.
Ms Brennan’s union representative, John Cleary of SIPTU, said there had been “no substantive reasons provided” for his client’s dismissal.
The tribunal noted that Ms Brennan had been subject to a second performance improvement plan, but that there had been a failure to implement it during a period when her line manager was out on protected leave.
Deciding on the case, adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill noted that Ms Brennan had a right by contract to a month’s notice of dismissal whether she was on probation or not – and that 30 August termination letter had asked her to work out the notice.
He concluded that as TCD had “explicitly requested” Ms Brennan stay on, the date of dismissal was the day of expiry of the notice, 29 September 2023 – a year and 24 days after she started the job.
Ms Brennan was out of work from that date to 29 April 2024, when she started in a job with a 25% lower salary.
“As she turned down a much better paid role with another prospective employer, because she would not learn how to drive, and presented no evidence of attempts to secure work after she started in her current role, I make no award in respect of her prospective financial loss,” Mr O’Neill wrote.
He also noted that in the seven months Ms Brennan was out of work, she had “restricted her job search to roles that were advertised directly by companies instead of also applying for jobs that were posted by agencies”. He said this was an “inadequate” effort to secure alternative work.
However, in noting the college’s position that Ms Brennan “failed to sufficiently mitigate her loss” from the unfair dismissal, he said he still had to consider its failure to afford her “any fair procedures” when it moved to dismiss her.
He found Ms Brennan made “no contribution” to her dismissal, upheld her complaint, and awarded her €15,000 in compensation.
