# Is this a case of unfair dismissal?



## Not_happy (10 Mar 2009)

Greetings!

I am based in Ireland & am certain that the law regarding redundancy/unfair dismissal in Ireland is common to that in the UK. Please see if you could throw some light on the matter...

I was told earlier this month (2nd March) that my services will not be required by my employer (I have been with the company just under 2 yrs) after the end of this month. Instead, my employer will hire the services of a some external part time contractor. Fair enough!!! The inside rumour is that I am being replaced & that my employer intends to find a replacement. This, I know, is a genuine case of unfair dismissal.

My question is, is there a law that permits my employer to hire someone in my place after 'x' amount of time? I mean, can my employer claim that after one month (or whatever) of letting me go they realised that they shouldn't have rushed into the decision (of letting me go) & started head hunting for the same role?

I hope that there are people here who can advise me on the current employment law.

Thanks a lot in advance.


----------



## susie1 (10 Mar 2009)

sounds more like you are being let go rather than being made redundant, there is a difference.
if you were made redundant your employer couldn't replace you for X amount of time but if your sacked, he can employ anyone, whenever.


----------



## Smashbox (10 Mar 2009)

Services will no longer be required sounds like you being let go, not made redundant.


----------



## Mpsox (11 Mar 2009)

If you are being let go due to the end of a fixed term contract, due to your performance not being up to scratch or due to the role no longer being required, then it would not be UD. It's not clear from your post if any of these apply


----------



## Calebs Dad (11 Mar 2009)

Not enough info on the post to make an informed opinion. But please remember, posts are made redundant not people. If there is a sound business reason to re-introduce a post further down the line, employers are entitled to do so. Most will vary the title or the job description slightly to avoid "sham" redundancy senarios


----------



## fitzg (11 Mar 2009)

Mpsox said:


> If you are being let go due to the end of a fixed term contract, then it would not be UD. It's not clear from your post if any of these apply


 
This is misleading - unfair dismissal can apply if a clause has not been included in the contract.  Here is an excerpt from the Citizens Information website relating to fixed-term contracts:

*Dismissal *

When an employee is dismissed at the end of the contract the unfair dismissals legislation applies as normal unless the employer has availed of the provision to exclude the operation of the legislation. To avail of that provision, the employer must put the contract in writing. The employer must include a clause stating that the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2001 will not apply where the only reason for ending the contract is the expiry of the fixed term, or the completion of the specified purpose. Both the employer and the employee must sign the contract.


----------



## Natt (12 Mar 2009)

Maybe the sceptic in me but in this """current economic""" climate Id be a bit suspicious of being 'let go' with just under 2 years service as employees do not qualify for redundancy (so I believe).... Clearly if the reasons for termination are performance related its a different story although should this be the case the employer should be in a position to verify that/how any performance issues were raised with the employee and also support any endeavours on the companys behave to improve employee performance.


----------



## DeclanP (12 Mar 2009)

Agree with last poster, you are probably being 'let go' because you are not entitled to redundancy after just two years. Try the citizens advice bureau for some guidance but I have a feeling that the employer rules in this case. OP is vague about details of job or working environment.


----------



## askalot (12 Mar 2009)

DeclanP said:


> you are probably being 'let go' because you are not entitled to redundancy after just two years. Try the citizens advice bureau for some guidance but I have a feeling that the employer rules in this case.



But it is my understanding that after a year of employment an employee can not just be 'let go', which really translates as sacked, without just cause. Is this not the case?


----------



## DeclanP (12 Mar 2009)

askalot said:


> But it is my understanding that after a year of employment an employee can not just be 'let go', which really translates as sacked, without just cause. Is this not the case?


----------



## DeclanP (12 Mar 2009)

I believe that up to two years employment, the employer does not have to pay redundancy. The employer can make an employee redundant within that period of time without having to cough up anything. Of course, the employer can use the economic downturn for doing this but the original poster is vague about why he is being let go and replaced.


----------



## sandrat (12 Mar 2009)

yes but if the the employer is replacing the employee then the position is not redundant


----------



## foxylady (12 Mar 2009)

Check out these sites [broken link removed] and www.eatribunal.ie


----------

