Dublin Business School must pay €53,000 for teacher fired for logging in to Iran

Amir Sajad Esmaeily was awarded the award following a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited v Dublin Business School at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

The council’s position was that Mr Esmaeily had been told he should not access his DBS computer system while visiting what was described in his legal notice as a “prohibited” country.

He was dismissed on February 3, 2023, following a disciplinary process, which concluded that “unauthorized access to his university emails abroad amounted to a serious violation of university policy,” the university’s lawyers told the WRC.

Cillian McGovern BL, who was instructed by barrister Barry Crushell, argued that his client’s actions “did not amount to gross misconduct” and that the council had not considered any sanction other than dismissal.

Mr Esmaeily had traveled to attend his uncle’s funeral, the tribunal was told. His lawyer confirmed that the complainant was in Iran.

Claire Bruton BL, who was instructed by Hayes Solicitors on behalf of the defendant, admitted the dismissal was unfair at a hearing in May. The only issue to be considered by the WRC was compensation. Mr Esmaeily earned a contractual salary of €50,000 a year, with additional supervisory duties bringing his average annual income to €91,000, the filing said.

Mr Esmaeily said that in addition to his uncle’s death, his wife became seriously ill around the time of his dismissal – both of which had affected his job search.

He added that details of his dismissal had spread by “word of mouth” and had impacted his applications for new work and his “reputation and career prospects”.

The tribunal heard that 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 argued there was “no evidence” that the complainant applied for work outside his field or that he met with the requirement in case law to make an effort every day to find new work.

In ruling on Mr Esmaeily’s case, Judge Hugh Lonsdale wrote: “His attempts to find work do not meet the requirements of the Unfair Dismissals Act. However, I take note of the personal events in his life and the consequences of his dismissal for the complainant.”

“Given that the respondent has admitted that his actions amounted to an unfair dismissal, I accept that the complainant was entitled to a sense of injustice at the disciplinary process to which he was subjected,” he added.

Mr Lonsdale wrote that he considered €53,000 to be “just and fair” compensation for the unfair dismissal given the circumstances.