There is often uncertainty in employment law claims around the date on which the employment terminated.
This is a threshold question for many Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC‘) complaints as generally speaking, employees have six months from the termination date to commence a WRC claim.
This question is particularly important for unfair dismissal claims. An employee may be dismissed a few weeks or months short of the requisite one year’s service. However, what is the position where notice is paid in lieu but where that notice entitlement, if fully served, would have tipped their service period over the line? If PILON is not added on, the WRC may lack jurisdiction to hear the claim.
PILON
Where an employee serves their notice period, whether actively or on garden leave, there is usually no room for argument about the dismissal date. The historic uncertainty has related to PILON scenarios. Is the termination date the date on which notice is served and paid in lieu or when notice would have expired if worked in full?
The position has bedded down somewhat over recent years and can be summarised as follows:
- Where the employer is expressly contractually entitled to pay in lieu of notice, then PILON should stop the clock for unfair dismissal purposes
- There remains a possibility of service being counted differently for the purposes of other claims, so caution must be exercised
- There remains a risk that the notice period will be added on (despite it being paid in lieu) where the contractual provisions are not sufficiently clear or because there is a lack of clarity with the notice arrangements. Employers should note that the WRC will add on contractual and/or statutory notice periods in appropriate cases
- Exceptions and arguments can arise in specific cases e.g. if minimum statutory notice periods are not observed
- There have been several recent decisions in which the claim failed because the complainant lacked the requisite one year’s service. This was illustrated in how the Labour Court dealt with various arguments in the recent Rehab Enterprises Limited v Mongey (UDD2632), August 2026 case.
Rehab Enterprises Limited v Mongey
Rehab Enterprise Limited v Mongey was an appeal regarding an unfair dismissal claim following a redundancy process. A preliminary issue arose concerning the exact date of dismissal and whether the claim was lodged within the strict six-month statutory time limit.
The Complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on 22 March 2022 which the company argued was more than six months after the 30 July 2021 termination date. The Complainant argued that the effective date of dismissal was 24 September, when notice would have expired had it not been paid in lieu. However, the Court agreed with the company’s interpretation. It had exercised an express contractual PILON clause. The effective date of dismissal was the actual final working day, 30 July 2021, and not the date on which the notice period would have expired in the normal course.
Under Section 7(1) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 and in line with this line of cases, where a contract permits PILON and the employee accepts it, the statutory right to notice is extinguished.
The Court rejected the argument that possible non-compliance with notice obligations under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 meant that PILON had not been effective. The relevant provisions to determining the dismissal date in this case were those contained in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Consequently, the WRC complaint lodged on 22 March 2022 fell outside the six-month statutory time limit and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the substantive claim (there are some exceptions where circumstances dispense with the one year rule and advice should always be sought.).
