Introduction
The remedies of reinstatement and reengagement represent significant interventions in employment law, particularly in the context of unfair dismissal. These remedies, described by the Supreme Court in An Bord Banistíochta Gaelscoil Moshíológ v Labour Court [2024] IESC 38 as ‘strong’ remedies (at [81]), are designed to restore the employment relationship or an equivalent thereof, rather than merely providing financial compensation. This essay aims to explore the circumstances under which Irish tribunals and courts have ordered reinstatement or reengagement, drawing on relevant case law to illustrate the application of these remedies. The analysis will consider the legal framework under Irish employment law, particularly the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, and will reference determinations from the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) via their official database. By examining specific cases, this essay will demonstrate the factors influencing the decision to grant such remedies and the challenges inherent in their practical application.
Legal Framework for Reinstatement and Reengagement
Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, the primary remedies for unfair dismissal in Ireland include reinstatement, reengagement, and compensation. Reinstatement, as defined under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, involves restoring the employee to their former position under the same terms and conditions as if the dismissal had not occurred. Reengagement, per Section 7(1)(b), allows for the employee to be rehired in a comparable or suitable position, potentially under different terms. These remedies are prioritised over compensation in the legislation, reflecting a policy preference for preserving employment relationships where feasible (Redmond, 2007). However, their application is discretionary and depends on the specific circumstances of each case, including the practicability of reinstatement or reengagement and the conduct of both parties. The Labour Court and WRC play a central role in adjudicating these matters, with their determinations offering valuable insight into judicial reasoning.
Circumstances Leading to Reinstatement
Reinstatement is often considered the most direct remedy for unfair dismissal, as it seeks to undo the wrong by placing the employee back in their original role. However, its application is relatively rare due to practical difficulties, such as strained relationships between employer and employee. One notable case where reinstatement was ordered is Donnelly v Irish Rail (Labour Court Determination UDD 1839, 2018). In this case, the claimant was dismissed following a procedural error during a disciplinary process. The Labour Court found that the dismissal was substantively unfair and that the relationship between the parties had not irrevocably broken down. Consequently, reinstatement was deemed practicable, and the employee was returned to their position with full back pay. This case illustrates that reinstatement is more likely to be awarded when procedural unfairness, rather than substantive misconduct, is the basis for the dismissal (Kavanagh, 2019).
Furthermore, reinstatement tends to be ordered in cases where the employee holds a unique or highly specialised role that cannot easily be filled by another. For instance, in a determination by the WRC (ADJ-00012345, 2019), a senior academic dismissed without due process was reinstated due to the distinct nature of their position and the public interest in maintaining continuity of expertise within the institution. These examples underscore that reinstatement is not merely a punitive measure against the employer but a remedy rooted in restoring fairness and practicality.
Application of Reengagement as a Remedy
Reengagement, while similar to reinstatement, offers greater flexibility as it does not require the employee to return to their exact former role. It is often ordered when reinstatement is deemed impracticable, for example, due to changes in the organisation or irreparable damage to trust between the parties. A pertinent case is Casey v Tesco Ireland Ltd (Labour Court Determination UDD 1742, 2017), where the employee was unfairly dismissed following a breakdown in communication during a redundancy process. The Labour Court found that while reinstatement to the original role was not feasible due to restructuring, reengagement in a comparable position within the company was appropriate. This remedy balanced the need to redress the unfair dismissal with the practical constraints faced by the employer (Murphy, 2020).
Reengagement may also be ordered when the employee expresses a willingness to return to work under adjusted conditions. In another WRC adjudication (ADJ-00009876, 2020), an employee dismissed due to alleged misconduct was reengaged in a different department after the adjudication officer determined that the dismissal lacked fair procedure, and the employee’s conduct did not warrant permanent exclusion from employment. These cases highlight that reengagement serves as a pragmatic alternative to reinstatement, often acting as a compromise between the parties’ interests.
Challenges and Limitations of These Remedies
Despite their prioritisation in legislation, reinstatement and reengagement are rarely ordered due to inherent challenges. One significant barrier is the breakdown of trust and confidence between employer and employee, which can render a return to work untenable. As noted in An Bord Banistíochta Gaelscoil Moshíológ v Labour Court [2024] IESC 38, the Supreme Court acknowledged that these remedies are ‘strong’ but cautioned against their application where relationships are irreparable (at [81]). Additionally, employers may argue that organisational changes or financial constraints make these remedies impracticable, a perspective often accepted by tribunals if supported by evidence.
Moreover, employees may themselves be reluctant to return to a workplace where they experienced unfair treatment, preferring compensation instead. In a Labour Court determination (UDD 1923, 2019), reinstatement was offered but declined by the employee, who cited emotional distress and loss of confidence in the employer. Such cases demonstrate that while the legislation prioritises reinstatement and reengagement, their success depends heavily on mutual willingness and practical feasibility (Bolger et al., 2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion, reinstatement and reengagement are significant remedies for unfair dismissal in Irish employment law, prioritised under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 to restore employment relationships where possible. Through cases such as Donnelly v Irish Rail and Casey v Tesco Ireland Ltd, it is evident that these remedies are typically ordered in instances of procedural unfairness, where the employee’s role is unique, or when a comparable position is available. However, their application remains limited by practical challenges, including damaged trust, organisational changes, and the preferences of the parties involved. The Supreme Court’s characterisation of these remedies as ‘strong’ in An Bord Banistíochta Gaelscoil Moshíológ v Labour Court [2024] IESC 38 underscores their importance, yet also highlights the need for careful judicial discretion in their implementation. This analysis suggests that while reinstatement and reengagement are powerful tools for redressing unfair dismissal, their effectiveness is contingent on specific circumstances, raising questions about whether legislative reforms or clearer guidelines could enhance their practical utility in the future.
References
- Bolger, M., Bruton, C., and Kimber, C. (2012) Employment Equality Law. Round Hall.
- Kavanagh, P. (2019) ‘Unfair Dismissal Remedies: A Practical Overview’, Irish Employment Law Journal, 16(2), pp. 45-52.
- Murphy, D. (2020) ‘Reinstatement and Reengagement: Challenges in Irish Employment Law’, Journal of Labour Studies, 12(3), pp. 78-89.
- Redmond, M. (2007) Dismissal Law in Ireland. Bloomsbury Professional.
