Courts / Dublin / Report

'Outline of agreement' in Fish Shack dispute after a second order for compensation

Date
2023-03-24

Stage
Hearing Or Decision

Primary locality
Dublin

County
Dublin

Summary

The Workplace Relations Commission adjourned a hearing into Stephen Hanley's unfair dismissal claim against PBR Restaurants Ltd, the operator of the Fish Shack chain, after the parties reported progress toward an agreement. Adjudicating officer Aideen Collard granted a two-week period for re-entry before closing the file, noting the need to curtail legal costs. This development followed the WRC's decision upholding David Hanley's complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, ordering the firm to pay €20,000 in compensation. This award brings the total compensation orders against the company to €50,000, following an earlier €30,000 award to Philip Hanley. The Hanley family, including founder Pádraic Hanley, alleged they were unfairly dismissed in a "sham" redundancy process after the business was bought out of examinership in late 2019. The company argued the dismissals were procedurally fair and driven by genuine redundancy needs due to restaurant closures and the pandemic. Adjudicators in both upheld cases noted concerns regarding the independence of the post-redundancy appeals mechanism, specifically that the HR firm involved was linked to Peninsula Business Services. Michael Kinsley BL, representing Stephen Hanley, stated the parties had an "outline of agreement" and hoped to resolve the matter without further tribunal appearances. Gavin Cumiskey of Peninsula Business Services confirmed the employer's position on the adjournment.

Who, what, where, when and why

What: Report matter: 'Outline of agreement' in Fish Shack dispute after a second order for compensation. Procedural stage: hearing_or_decision

When:

February 2020 Other
August 2020 Other
April 2021 Other
2023-03-24 Publication

Why: However, the tribunal ruled that as Mr Hanley snr's employment had only started after the examinership process he had too little service to take an unfair dismissal claim, and rejected further statutory complaints on his working hours because of his seniority in the organisation. CNI source report