WRC Rules Dismissal of Financial Advisors Was Unfair – Lessons for Employers

A Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator has ruled that two financial advisors were unfairly dismissed by their employer after it emerged they had been planning to set up a competing business, in a decision that carries real lessons for how Irish employers handle disciplinary processes.

The case, reported by The Irish Times on 13 February 2026, involved Natasza Korajda and her daughter-in-law Natalia Koziol, both of whom were sacked by Stephen Hamilton Financial Services, trading as Mortgageline, in August 2023. Michael Kinsley BL, instructed by KOD Lyons, represented the two claimants.

Adjudicator David James Murphy upheld both complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, awarding Ms Korajda €4,650 and Ms Koziol €3,000.

How the Dismissal Unfolded

Ms Korajda joined Mr Hamilton’s company in 2013 on a JobBridge placement — the Department of Social Protection scheme that ran between 2011 and 2016, placing jobseekers with companies for a minimum of 30 hours per week in exchange for a €52.50 supplement on top of their social welfare payment.

She went on to qualify as a financial advisor and built up a client base within the firm. By 2023, she described herself as a top performer in the company, earning around €139,000 a year.

That same year, Ms Korajda and Ms Koziol set up NK Capital Partners Ltd and registered the business name ‘Get Mortgage’. They had not begun trading, as the venture required Central Bank approval. Ms Korajda told the WRC that she had intended to discuss the plans with Mr Hamilton once regulatory approval was in place, and hoped to work alongside her former employer rather than in direct opposition.

She listed Mr Hamilton on a Central Bank application form but asked the regulator not to contact him straight away. The Central Bank reached out to Mr Hamilton regardless, and when he learned of the plans, events moved quickly.

Suspension, Disciplinary Hearing, and Dismissal

According to the WRC hearing, Mr Hamilton initially took what Ms Korajda described as a conciliatory tone and agreed to sign the relevant regulatory forms. Within days, that changed. Both employees were told to resign or face a disciplinary hearing.

When they refused to resign, they were suspended. Their solicitors wrote to the company threatening to seek injunctive relief if the suspensions were not lifted and their access to workplace systems was not restored.

Mr Hamilton said he was shocked to discover that two of his staff had set up a company to compete with his business. He cited concerns about their access to clients and sensitive information, and said he believed dismissal was necessary.

He investigated the matter personally and produced a report on 15 July 2023 stating that the two employees had set up a business in direct competition with the firm in breach of their contracts, and that their immediate dismissals were warranted.

That report was then sent to an external human resources consultant, Gillian Knight, who met the employees for a disciplinary hearing on 31 July 2023. Ms Knight recommended dismissal on 11 August 2023.

WRC Findings: Why the Dismissal Was Ruled Unfair

What makes this case worth paying attention to is that the adjudicator did not say the employer had no reason to be concerned. In fact, Mr Murphy was fairly direct in his criticism of the employees’ approach too.

He noted that Ms Korajda and Ms Koziol “largely failed to address” their employer’s “reasonable concerns” during the disciplinary process, and that their solicitors had chosen to threaten legal action rather than engage with the substance of the issues. He also observed that they had not offered to abandon the new company to protect the employment relationship.

The adjudicator wrote that he was “not clear as to why they expected any sort of positive reception” when their employer eventually found out about the rival business.

So what went wrong for the employer? The answer lies in how the disciplinary process was conducted — not the underlying facts.

Mr Murphy found that Mr Hamilton’s personal involvement in the investigation went beyond what was appropriate. Rather than confining his report to findings of fact, Mr Hamilton made explicit findings of gross misconduct and stated that dismissal was warranted. By doing so, he effectively predetermined the outcome of the disciplinary process before the external consultant had even met with the employees.

The adjudicator accepted it was “probably unavoidable” that Mr Hamilton would form a view of the situation. But the way that view was documented and communicated meant the external disciplinary officer, Ms Knight, “could not remedy the obvious, and avoidable prejudice” that arose from the investigation report.

In short, the process fell below the standard of reasonably fair procedures required under Irish employment law.

Unfair Dismissal Lessons for Irish Employers

This case is a clear reminder that even where an employer has genuine and legitimate concerns about employee conduct, those concerns must be addressed through a process that is fair, proportionate, and properly structured. Getting the facts right is not enough if the procedure is flawed.

Under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the burden of proof in a dismissal case falls on the employer. It is up to the company to show that the dismissal was fair in both substance and procedure. A failure on either front can result in a finding of unfair dismissal, regardless of how strong the employer’s case might otherwise have been.

There are several practical points that employers across Ireland — whether based in Dublin, Cork, Galway, or anywhere else — should take from this decision:

Keep investigation and decision-making separate. The person who investigates an allegation should not be the person who decides the disciplinary outcome. Where the business owner is personally involved (as is often the case in smaller firms), it is particularly important to bring in an independent decision-maker at the earliest possible stage — not after findings of misconduct have already been made.

An investigation report should contain facts, not conclusions about guilt. Mr Hamilton’s mistake was not that he had an opinion on what had happened. It was that he put that opinion — and a recommendation for dismissal — into the investigation report. That left the external disciplinary officer with little room to reach an independent view.

Engage an external party early, not late. Bringing in Ms Knight for the disciplinary hearing was the right idea, but by the time she was involved, the damage had been done. An independent investigator appointed at the outset would have given the process far more credibility.

Respond proportionately to the specific conduct. Courts and the WRC expect that the penalty imposed matches the severity of the misconduct. Where there are mitigating factors — such as an employee’s long service, their performance record, or the fact that the competing business had not yet begun trading — these should be weighed carefully before any decision to dismiss.

Employee Obligations When Starting a Rival Business

While the employees won their case, the adjudicator’s comments make clear that they did not handle the situation well either. Planning a rival business while still employed raises serious questions about loyalty and confidentiality, and the decision to list the employer on a regulatory application — while asking the regulator not to contact him — was always going to be difficult to explain.

Employees who are considering leaving to start their own venture should be open with their employer about their plans at an appropriate point, or at the very least seek legal advice before taking steps that could be seen as a breach of their contract of employment. Post-employment restrictive covenants, confidentiality obligations, and duties of good faith are all areas where early legal guidance can change the outcome entirely.

The employment law team at KOD Lyons regularly advises both employees and employers on these types of issues, including contractual obligations, restraint of trade clauses, and how to manage exits where commercial sensitivities are involved.

Fair Procedures in Workplace Disciplinary Processes

This case sits within a long line of WRC and Labour Court case law on the requirements of fair procedures in the workplace. Irish employment law draws heavily on principles of natural justice — the right to be heard, the right to an impartial decision-maker, and the right to know the case against you.

The Workplace Relations Commission deals with thousands of complaints each year, and procedural failures are one of the most common reasons that dismissals are found to be unfair. Employers who invest time in getting their procedures right — and who follow those procedures consistently — are far better positioned to defend their decisions if challenged.

Stephen Kirwan, Partner at KOD Lyons, commented: “This decision is a good example of how a failure in process can undermine an otherwise reasonable position. The employer had legitimate concerns, but the way the investigation was handled effectively decided the outcome before the disciplinary hearing took place. For businesses of any size, the message is clear: fair procedures aren’t just a legal technicality — they’re the foundation of a defensible decision.”

Review Your Disciplinary and Investigation Procedures

If you’re an employer in Ireland, it’s worth reviewing your current disciplinary and investigation procedures in light of decisions like this. Ask yourself whether your process genuinely separates investigation from decision-making, whether your managers are trained on what an investigation report should and should not contain, and whether you have access to independent HR or legal support when serious allegations arise.

For employees facing disciplinary action, or considering a move that could bring them into conflict with their current employer, getting professional legal advice early matters more than most people realise to the outcome.

The KOD Lyons employment law team advises clients across Ireland on all aspects of the employer-employee relationship — from contract drafting and workplace disputes to WRC representation and High Court proceedings. If you need guidance on any employment law matter, contact the team for a confidential consultation.

This article is based on reporting by Stephen Bourke in The Irish Times, 13 February 2026.