An accountant has secured over €145,000 in the largest award for unfair dismissal so far this year.
The “refusal” of her former employer to give a reason for getting rid of her dealt “a severe blow to her future job prospects”, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard.
It made the award to Maria Inmaculada De La Torre Ruiz on foot of her complaint against Hamilton UK Services Ltd under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
The company, a branch of the Hamilton Group, an international insurance underwriter, admitted she was dismissed “without cause”.
David McWilliams: ‘I’ve never seen anything like this economic chaos. Buckle up’
My grandfather died by suicide. I work in the same Irish university where he taught history
Government plans to quickly remove citizenship from convicted terrorist
Contraceptive concerns: ‘When I came off the pill, everything became so much better’
It has now been held liable for an award at the maximum jurisdiction of the WRC under the legislation, of two years of the worker’s total remuneration, including her salary, pension contributions and professional association fees.
Ms De La Torre Ruiz, who represented herself before the tribunal, worked as a financial accountant at the firm from July 6th, 2021. She had secured pay rises of over €15,500 in that time and was earning €63,000 a year when her job was terminated on July 27th, 2023, the WRC noted.
She told the WRC it was an unfair dismissal and that she “was not informed of any reason behind the decision” to drop her as an employee.
After losing her job, she managed to secure a nine-month fixed-term contract in 2024, but was back looking for work before Christmas that year and was still searching at the time of a hearing into her complaint in January this year.
Adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill, who heard the case, wrote in his decision: “As the respondent accepts that the dismissal was effected without cause, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.”
Mr O’Neill wrote that based on his experience as a human resources professional, it was not a surprise that Ms De La Torre-Ruiz had found it “extremely challenging” to find a new permanent job after the way she was dismissed.
“Jobseekers are typically asked in interviews about the reasons for leaving their most recent permanent position,” he wrote.
“Potential employers would be very reluctant to offer the complainant a permanent role, especially a reasonably well-paid one, if she is unable to explain, because of the respondent’s refusal to do so, why she was dismissed,” he wrote.
Ms De La Torre Ruiz was down some €33,490 between her dismissal and taking up the temporary role in 2024, and a further €23,661 between the end of that contract and the WRC hearing in January 2025 – a total loss of €57,151, he noted.
Mr O’Neill decided that since the complainant had still not found a new permanent job in the 18 months since her dismissal “despite her extensive attempts to do so”, he believed it would take “at least a further 18 months to find a new role”. He calculated her prospective loss going forward after the hearing to be €108,841 and her total financial loss from the dismissal to be €165,992.
However, he wrote that he was limited to double the worker’s total yearly remuneration in making the award. Taking a 12.5 per cent pension contribution, professional fees and training costs into account, Mr O’Neill found he was limited to €145,122.
He directed the company to pay Ms De La Torre Ruiz that sum.
Kevin Bell BL instructed by Matheson LLP on behalf of the employer, had advanced the contention that Ms De La Torre Ruiz had failed to mitigate her losses and that her ex-employer could not be held liable for them.
He argued she “unreasonably refused” some job offers “on the basis that they were too far from her home,” the adjudicator noted.
Mr O’Neill noted that Ms De La Torre Ruiz “provided evidence of hundreds of new roles that she has applied for”.
He concluded that she had been reasonable in turning down the job offers highlighted by Mr Bell and that there was “no basis” for cutting the totality of the damages in the case.
The award for losses in the case surpasses the €125,000 granted to a hotel group executive last month after a ruling that he was unfairly dismissed under “cloak” of redundancy.
