Worker loses unfair dismissal claim after failing to notify employer of prison sentence
Seán McCárthaigh
A worker who failed to tell his employer that he had been given a lengthy prison sentence has lost a claim that he was unfairly dismissed from his job.
The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the man’s job was terminated arising from “a frustration of contract” due to his unavailability to work as required.
It rejected a claim by the worker that his prison sentence was used by his employer as an excuse to terminate his contract for other work issues.
The WRC consented to an application by the complainant to have his name anonymised as his past prison sentence might prejudice his attempts to find new employment.
The WRC heard the man had worked for a company since July 2022 on a monthly salary of €2,917.
He complained that towards the end of 2023 he felt he was being reprimanded due to staff changes and also believed the company did not welcome his feedback on certain issues.
Around the same time, there was a performance review while he had also submitted a complaint of bullying against a line manager which had resulted in correspondence about an exit package.
In evidence, the man said he expected a suspended sentence because of his guilty plea at a court appearance in January 2024.
However, the WRC heard that he actually received a prison sentence of two years.
Cross-examined by counsel for the company, Maurice Osborne, about why he had not informed his employers of the criminal charges he was facing and the pending court case, the worker replied that he was sick with worry and that nothing had been decided at that stage on his guilt or otherwise.
While he did not dispute that his absence would have an impact on the company, he claimed work was normally reassigned during long-term absences by other staff.
The man complained that the company had never made any queries about his prospects for remission of his prison sentence.
He also claimed he was not given sufficient time to respond from prison before his employment was terminated.
The WRC heard the company became aware he was in prison from a third party and media reports in mid-January 2024.
The head of human resources told the WRC that she regarded his employment contract as frustrated due to the potential period of absence from work.
The witness said the employee had been given an opportunity to respond over a three-month consultation period.
A manager in the company said the worker's absence was a real concern due to his direct interaction with clients and a recruitment freeze.
The WRC heard a contact person had informed the company that the worker might only be in prison for 10 months, but this was regarded as only speculation.
WRC adjudication officer, Seamus Clinton, allowed an extension of the normal timeline to file a complaint, despite an objection by the employer, due to issues related to the complainant’s imprisonment.
Clinton said the worker accepted that his custodial sentence arose from his own actions.
However, he said the man also had time to respond to the company to make representations on the issue of frustration of contract.
Clinton said the company could not delay indefinitely on the issue.
He pointed out that it believed at the time his absence would be at least two years.
The WRC ruled that there was a frustration of contract due to an unexpected event in which the company had no role.
While the man’s attendance at work was required, Clinton said the company knew his absence would be “long-term.”
He also said he was satisfied that discussions around an exit package, which occurred shortly before his imprisonment were unrelated to the grounds relied upon to find a frustration of contract had taken place.
