Amir Sajad Esmaeily secured the award on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Dublin Business School (DBS)
Dublin Business School has been ordered to pay €53,000 after admitting sacking a lecturer for logging into his college email account from Iran was unfair.
Amir Sajad Esmaeily secured the award on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The college’s position was that Mr Esmaeily had been told not to access his DBS computer system while visiting what was described in its legal submission as a “prohibited” country.
He was dismissed on 3 February 2023, following a disciplinary process, which concluded that “unauthorised access to his college emails whilst abroad amounted to a serious breach of college policy”, the college’s lawyers told the WRC.
Cillian McGovern BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Barry Crushell, argued his client’s actions “did not amount to gross misconduct” and that the college failed to consider any sanction other than dismissal.
Mr Esmaeily had travelled to attend the funeral of his uncle, the tribunal was told. His solicitor has confirmed that the complainant was in Iran.
Claire Bruton BL, who was instructed by Hayes Solicitors for the respondent, conceded at a hearing in May that the dismissal was unfair. The only matter for consideration by the WRC was compensation. Mr Esmaeily was earning a contractual salary of €50,000 a year, with additional supervision duties raising his average annual earnings to €91,000, it was submitted.
Mr Esmaeily said that in addition to the death of his uncle, his wife became seriously ill around the time of his dismissal – both of which had impacted his job search.
He added the details of his dismissal had spread by “word of mouth” and impacted his applications for new work and impacted his “reputation and career prospects”.
The tribunal heard Mr Esmaeily made 35 job applications in the 18 months between his dismissal in February 2023 and a final hearing in August 2024. Ms Bruton submitted that there was “no evidence” of the complainant applying for work outside his field or that he met the requirement in case law to make efforts every day to find new work.
Ruling on Mr Esmaeily’s case, adjudicating officer Hugh Lonsdale wrote: “His efforts to find work do not satisfy the requirements of the Unfair Dismissals Act. However, I take cognisance of the personal events in his life and the effect of his dismissal on the complainant.”
“As the respondent has conceded their actions amount to an unfair dismissal I accept the complainant was entitled to a sense of injustice about the disciplinary process to which he was subjected,” he added.
Mr Lonsdale wrote that he considered €53,000 to be “just and equitable” compensation for the unfair dismissal in the circumstances.
