News and developments
Labour Court Varies Redress Ordered by WRC, Replacing Compensation for Reinstatement Despite “Misgivings”
The Respondent accepted that the “Complainant” had been unfairly dismissed, but argued that reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy in the circumstances of the case.[2]
Facts: The Labour Court was not required to assess the fairness or otherwise of the Complainant’s dismissal, but only to consider whether or not reinstatement was the appropriate redress in this case.
The Respondent put forward the following main arguments in support of its position that reinstatement ought not to have been ordered:
Footnotes [1] UDD2242. [2] The parties are referred to in the same way in which they were referred to in the WRC. [3] UD858/1999.
Authors – Jenny Wakely and Anne O’Connell
8th August 2022
- The Complainant’s “combative and insubordinate” behaviour had resulted in a difficult working environment and the Respondent owed a duty of care to its existing employees.
- The business had moved on since the Complainant’s dismissal and her reinstatement would require the Respondent to make an existing staff member redundant as there was no longer a need for an additional IT tutor.
- The Respondent’s financial difficulties meant that reinstatement would impose a significant financial burden on it.
Footnotes [1] UDD2242. [2] The parties are referred to in the same way in which they were referred to in the WRC. [3] UD858/1999.
Authors – Jenny Wakely and Anne O’Connell
8th August 2022