Dublin Business School is to pay €53,000 as a result of an unfair termination of a lecturer who accessed his institutional email while in Iran. The lecturer, Amir Sajad Esmaeily, lodged a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against the establishment, formally known as Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited.
The institution claimed that they had warned Mr Esmaeily against using the DBS system in a country that they had legally catalogued as ‘prohibited’. The college dismissed him after he broke this rule on February 3rd, 2023, deeming his acts as ‘unauthorised access’, causing severe violation of their policy, as stated by their legal representatives at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
However, Cillian McGovern BL, who represented Mr Esmaeily and was directed by solicitor Barry Crushell, convinced the WRC that his client had not committed any gross misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was too harsh.
Mr Esmaeily attended his uncle’s funeral in Iran at the time of his dismissal, as confirmed by his attorney. The WRC later found out during a hearing in May by Claire Bruton BL, the respondent’s representative, that the dismissal was unjustified. The only decision left to be made was about Mr Esmaeily’s compensation. With his annual salary plus supervisory roles, he earned an average of €91,000. Moreover, his wife fell seriously ill around his termination, which adversely affected his ability to find employment.
The tribunal was informed that the details of Mr Esmaeily’s termination were shared via “word of mouth”, thus affecting his career opportunities and his reputation, as well his attempts to secure new employment. Within the 18 months following his termination in February 2023 until the final tribunal in August 2024, Mr Esmaeily endeavoured to apply to 35 jobs.
However, Ms Bruton suggested that there was “no proof” of Mr Esmaeily taking steps to seek work beyond his professional comfort zone, or satisfying the legal obligation of consistently making daily efforts to find new employment.
Presiding officer Hugh Lonsdale, in his judgement on Mr Esmaeily’s case, stated: “I observe that his pursuit of employment does not fulfill the criteria of the Unfair Dismissals Act. Nevertheless, I am cognisant of his personal circumstances and the ramifications of his termination on him.”
“As the defendant admitted that their conduct resulted in an unjust termination, I am persuaded that the plaintiff was justified in feeling aggrieved about the disciplinary procedure to which he was exposed,” he continued.
Mr Lonsdale declared that, given the circumstances, he believed €53,000 to be a “fair and just” recompense for the unjust termination.