A Trinity College Dublin 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 out of work.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered Trinity College to pay former executive officer Kate Brennan €15,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
College authorities decided Ms Brennan failed her probation on August 30th, 2023, less than a week before she would have built up the full year’s service required to have the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977.
As she was then asked to work out a full month’s notice, she gained the right to pursue a complaint under the legislation, the tribunal concluded in a decision published on Friday.
READ MORE
At a hearing last November, Trinity’s head of employment relations, Mary Leahy, argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because Ms Brennan received notice of termination before her first year was complete.
However, the college said it would concede that the dismissal was unfair if the WRC decided the minimum service requirement of the Act was met.
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 Ms Brennan had been subject to a second performance improvement plan, but 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 Ms Brennan had a contractual right to a month’s notice of dismissal whether she was on probation or not, and the August 30th termination letter had asked her to work out the notice.
He concluded that TCD had “explicitly requested” Ms Brennan stay on.
Ms Brennan was out of work from that date, September 29th, 2023, to April 29th, 2024, when she started in a job with a 25 per cent 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.
In the seven months that 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, he added.
He found Ms Brennan made “no contribution” to her dismissal and upheld her complaint, awarding her €15,000 in compensation.
