In Caroline O’Connell v Lionbridge International Unlimited Company (ADJ-00057077), the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”), awarded the Complainant €142,984 in compensation for unfair dismissal, which figure represented the full value of her financial loss. The Adjudicator, Breffni O’Neill, was satisfied that the Complainant’s financial loss arose entirely from the Respondent’s actions.
Facts:- The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in June 2000, where she worked up until her employment was terminated, purportedly by reason of redundancy as of 8th November 2024. The Complainant had a long successful career with the Respondent, having been promoted several times during her employment. At the time her employment was terminated, she was working in the role of Managing Director, EMA GLT.
The Complainant claimed that her dismissal was unfair, which the Respondent conceded. The WRC decision therefore focused solely on the issue of redress.
Decision: The Adjudicator decided that compensation was the appropriate remedy. The Adjudicator went on to calculate the Complainant’s actual “renumeration” in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Complainant earned a base salary of €275,000 at the time of her dismissal. She was also in receipt of an employer pension contribution, health insurance and her mobile phone and plan were paid for by her employer. The Adjudicator found that all these elements constituted “renumeration” for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.
The Complainant argued that her unvested Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) and her annual bonus should also be deemed “renumeration”. Firstly, the Adjudicator considered the bonus point and the company’s Discretionary Management Bonus Plan. The Adjudicator made a distinction between guaranteed or contractual earnings, and payments which remain contingent upon the employer’s discretion. Despite the Complainant having a reasonable expectation to her annual bonus, the bonus was nevertheless discretionary and did not form part of her renumeration.
In relation to the RSUs, the Adjudicator found that the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement was with a different corporate entity in the United States and not with the Respondent company that employed the Complainant. This was a “separate corporate arrangement” and therefore the RSUs were not held to constitute part of the Complainant’s renumeration and could not therefore be taken into consideration in calculating her financial loss.
The Complainant also argued that expenses relating to private counselling following her loss of employment and pension advice fees should be included as part of the award. This was rejected by the Adjudicator, as such losses cannot be said to constitute “renumeration” that would have been earned under contract but for the dismissal.
Considering the above, the Adjudicator found that the basis for the calculation of compensation included the Complainant’s annual salary, the employer pension contribution, the private health cover, and the mobile phone expenses which totalled €290,766 per annum. The Complainant was out of work for just over 25 weeks, resulting in financial loss of €142,984. On 6th May 2025 she commenced working in a new role on a higher salary than her previous role. Therefore, her financial loss ended on that date. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate her loss were satisfactory, noting that the Complainant was employed at a very senior level with few comparable roles available. The Complainant produced evidence of engagement with professional contacts and recruiters which established reasonable and proactive efforts to mitigate her loss.
Finally, the Adjudicator considered whether the statutory redundancy payment that had been made to the Complainant should be deducted from the compensatory award, as the Respondent argued that it should. The Adjudicator noted that there is conflicting and inconsistent case law on this matter. However, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the legislation provides a clear definition of “financial loss,”, and in his view:
“It is only in circumstances where a loss of up to the statutory maximum of 104 weeks has been calculated—creating a real risk of double recovery—that the question of deducting statutory redundancy properly arises.”
There was no question of “double recovery” in this case. As the Complainant’s financial loss was only 25.5 weeks, the Adjudicator did not consider it appropriate to make a deduction from the award. He regarded the statutory redundancy payment as a “distinct statutory entitlement” which accrued over the course of the Complainant’s service with the Respondent. As there was no reason to apply a reduction to the award, the Adjudicator directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant €142,984, the Complainant’s total loss, for the unfair dismissal.
Takeaway for Employers: This decision highlights the potentially significant financial exposure arising from unfair dismissals, particularly at senior executive level. This decision provides guidance on the calculation of “remuneration” and financial loss under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Employers should note that benefits such as employer pension contributions and private health insurance may all be treated as remuneration when assessing compensation, increasing the value of any award granted by the WRC.
The decision is particularly interesting in respect of the finding that the Complainant’s unvested RSUs did not form part of her remuneration for the purpose of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The WRC reached a different conclusion in Gary Rooney v X Internet Unlimited Company ADJ -00044246. However, interestingly, although the reasoning is somewhat different, the Labour Court has now overturned that decision and found that Mr Rooney’s unvested RSUs did not form part of his remuneration and should not be taken into consideration in calculating his financial loss in X Internet Unlimited Company and Gary Rooney UDD2612. Please see our article on this decision entitled “Labour Court Reduces WRC’s Record Award and Clarifies Calculation of Remuneration”.
Another particularly interesting aspect of the decision was the treatment of the Complainant’s statutory redundancy payment. The Adjudicator acknowledged the lack of clarity in this area, arising from conflicting decisions on the point. However, in this case he found that redundancy is a distinct statutory entitlement and will not necessarily be deducted from an award of compensation for unfair dismissal. Where an employee’s actual financial loss is less than the statutory cap of 104 weeks’ remuneration, employers cannot assume that redundancy payments will be deducted from an award of compensation. This remains an area to watch.
Finally, while this decision demonstrates that a Complainant’s mitigation efforts will be closely examined, it also underlines that even a relatively short period of unemployment can result in a high-value award where the Complainant is a high earner. For employers, the primary protection remains ensuring that redundancies are justified and procedurally fair, rather than relying on an employee’s mitigation or post-termination earnings to limit exposure. Legal advice is recommended.
Link – https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/march/adj-00057077.html
Authors:- Jenny Wakely, Jane Holian
Anne O’Connell 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.