This case involved a claim of unfair dismissal by the Complainant. The Complainant had been subject to a complaint by a female colleague who claimed he had made inappropriate advances towards her. Following the complaint, he was called to attend a meeting with a senior manager, without notice of the nature of the meeting. He alleged that he was told this meeting was not of an investigatory nature. His colleague's complaint was put to him in the meeting, but he denied the allegation. He also objected to the nature of the questions being asked and stated that the interviewer had a bias towards him. As a consequence, the investigator was replaced with another senior manager. As part of her investigations she did not interview the female who had made the complaint. Instead she reviewed CCTV footage of the incident and interviewed the Complainant. She subsequently referred the matter for disciplinary action and a disciplinary hearing was conducted.

As part of the disciplinary procedure the letter of complaint was reviewed, the notes of the two investigating senior managers were read and the CCTV footage reviewed. The Complainant was also interviewed and afforded the opportunity to outline his version of events. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the Complainant was dismissed on the basis that his conduct had amounted to gross misconduct and warranted dismissal. This decision to terminate the Complainant's employment was upheld on appeal to the Retail Director of the appellant Company.

Following a review of the CCTV footage, the Court agreed that the Complainant's behaviour was unacceptable. However, they noted the Complainant's assertion that there was a more developed relationship between himself and his female colleague. The Court also noted their concern that two supporting witnesses, who were offered to assist with the initial investigation, were not interviewed. Accordingly, the Court found that the Complainant had not been afforded fair procedures. In the circumstances, the Court found the dismissal was unfair and ordered the remedy of re-engagement of the Complainant in a suitable role that is one level below the grade occupied prior to his dismissal.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2017/December/UDD1758.html