The recent Labour Court decision of X Internet Unlimited Company v. Gary Rooney, arises from an appeal of a Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision, (ADJ -00044246) in which the Complainant was found to be unfairly dismissed and was awarded the sum of €550,131. See our previous article on that decision here. Both parties appealed this decision to the Labour Court on 9 September 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – 2015. On appeal, the Labour Court reduced the Complainant’s award to €201,458.
Facts: The Complainant was an employee of the Respondent from 23 September 2013 up to when his employment ended in December 2022. Following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the Respondent in October 2022, employees widely received the ‘fork in the road email’. This required them, within 46 hours to opt in to remain in employment under new, unspecified terms, failing to do so, would be confirming their decision to resign. The Complainant did not opt in, citing he had not been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. The Respondent treated this as a resignation.
The Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act seeking compensation based on his full earnings including bonus and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs). The WRC found that he had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him €550,131. Both parties appealed this decision to the Labour Court. The Labour Court had to determine whether, firstly a dismissal took place rather than a resignation, and if so, whether compensation is the appropriate form of redress. It also had to determine what formed part of his remuneration for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissal Act.
Decision: The Labour Court found that the Respondent, in setting an arbitrary deadline for a response to the ‘fork in the road’ email did so knowing that employees were being asked to sign up to unknown terms and conditions of their employment. In response to the Respondent’s defence that an FAQ was issued that referenced what would happen if an employee did not tick the box but did not want to resign, no clarification on this was issued within the said arbitrary deadline. Additionally, it was found that there was no justification for limiting the response time to 46/68 hours. The Court emphasised that resignation is not passive or conveyed by silence and rejected the Respondent’s position that failure to opt in amounted to a voluntary resignation. The Court found that the conduct of the Respondent was not reasonable. The Court found the Complainant to have been unfairly dismissed.
The Court having established an unfair dismissal occurred, considered the appropriate measure of compensation for the Complainant. It was agreed that the Complainant’s basic salary including pension contributions and health and dental insurance for 2022 was €151,225. The significant question was whether his bonus and RSU’s should be taken into consideration as part of his remuneration in respect of compensation under the Act.
The Complainant did not dispute that no bonuses were paid to any staff in 2022. Accordingly, even if he had remained in employment, he would not have received a bonus. In light of this, the Court determined that any bonus should not form part of the calculation of his remuneration.
In respect of the RSUs, they were available to staff at a certain level in the Respondent. To receive the RSU’s, the Complainant had to sign a contract on each occasion he was granted them. The Labour Court referenced a number of clauses from those contracts including the following:
Termination: “Participants right to vest in the RSU under the plan, if any, will terminate as effective as of the date that participation is no longer actively employed or providing services and will not be extended by any notice period”
Section 10 nature of grant: “the grant of the restricted stock units is voluntary and occasional and does not create any contractual or other right to receive future grants of restricted stock units, or benefits In lieu of restricted stock units”
“all decisions with respect to future restricted stock units or other grants, if any, will be at the sole discretion of the company”
The Complainant sought to rely on Section 13 of the Act which deems that a provision would be void if it was to exclude or limit the application or was inconsistent with the provision of the Act. The Court having reviewed the documents found that nothing in the agreement seeks to exclude or limit the application of the Act or is inconsistent with it, finding that the provisions did not prevent an employee taking a case under the Unfair Dismissals Act.. In response to the Complainant’s claim that he never sought legal advice before signing up to any of the RSUs, the
Court determined that he read and understood a description of the plan which he entered into and benefited on each occasion from it and is bound by the agreement. Therefore, the Court found that the RSUs were to be excluded from the calculation of remuneration for the purpose of compensation under the Act.
The Court found that the Complainant did not in any way contribute to his dismissal and was satisfied that the Complainant sufficiently mitigated his loss. The Court awarded the Complainant’s loss of earnings from December 2022 up until he obtained alternative employment in September 2023, amounting to €113,419. It also awarded the monthly difference of €1,777 in the salary of the new job calculated up until July 2025 giving a loss of €47,988. In August 2025 the Complainant received a pay increase, giving a monthly difference of €1,355 over six months until the Labour Court hearing, totalling a loss of €8,010.00. These figures total to an amount of €167,417. The Court took into account the fact it took over 2 years for the Complainant to get a pay increase in his new job and therefore awarded prospective losses for 2 years of €32,041, bringing the total compensation awarded to €201,458.
Takeaway for Employers: This case is particularly notable as it represents a significant recalibration of how remuneration is assessed for the purposes of calculating someone’s financial loss in an Unfair Dismissals claim. The Labour Court has emphasised clear contractual wording excluding RSUs from ‘normal remuneration’. The decision suggests contractual drafting in relation to such schemes is decisive so long as there is consideration to the employee and the agreement does not limit the employee’s rights to take a claim in relation to his/her dismissal.
Employers operating bonus schemes, share or other incentive plans should review their documentation to ensure they can be relied upon. This decision materially reduces the potential value of claims for senior employees with complex remuneration structures but may form part of negotiations on hiring key employees in the future.
Link: https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/april/udd2612.html
Authors- Abigail Ansell and Anne O’Connell
29th April 2026
AOC Solicitors
19-22 Baggot Street Lower
Dublin 2
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.