Use fair, transparent processes to avoid costly findings.

The Complainant returning from a ten-day Christmas holiday in December 2024. They said the workplace felt hostile and the Respondent criticised Christmas sales, mentioning “reduced benefits”. She claimed that, despite her requests for a team meeting, she and colleagues were ignored or addressed curtly. On 3 January 2025, without notice, she was kept after her shift for a meeting with the Respondent employer and manager and accused of misconduct. That being; losing money, poor sales, over-friendliness with customers, undercharging, giving free items, taking gifts, excessive loyalty stamps and allowing “too many tips.” She was told she was unwelcome at her branch, would be moved, and would be “watched closely.” On 7 January at Washington Street, she refused a private discussion without a witness. She alleged the employer pulled her arm while she was steaming milk, threatened Garda involvement, and warned of serious consequences. She described feeling humiliated, intimidated and physically threatened in public.

The Respondent said the Complainant was a barista/front-of-house assistant with duties set by her contract and the Employee Handbook. In late December 2024, concerns arose about “staff theft” (undercharging, giving freebies, unauthorised discounts). On her return, she was informally reminded to comply after observations of undercharging and giving away items. A fact-finding meeting on 3 January 2025 was held with a witness present; where they said the Complainant admitted occasionally charging below the listed price, discounting near-expiry goods, and giving leftover items for free. They said her transfer to another branch was a temporary, agreed step during the investigation, not a sanction. On 7 January, they had a short follow-up meeting; a colleague offered to witness, but the Complainant refused.

The Adjudicating Officer found the Employer breached fair procedures in late December 2024/early January 2025. The Complainant was twice required to attend management-initiated meetings (3 and 7 January) with no advance notice of allegations, no chance to prepare, and no offer of representation. The purported “witness” on 3 January was management. Serious accusations were put without a proper, impartial investigation. Their transfer to another location was deemed a disciplinary sanction imposed without due process, contrary to the Employer’s own procedures and natural justice. The Adjudicator preferred the Complainant’s account of the 7 January incident and held that repeated unnotified confrontations plus the punitive transfer created an undermining work environment. Their subsequent resignation, while not a dismissal claim here, corroborated the untenable environment. The Worker’s claim was upheld. A recommendation of €5000 was made.

Employers should:

• Treat any misconduct concern as a formal process from day one. Give written notice of the specific allegations, the evidence relied on, and the purpose of any meeting at least 24 to 48 hours in advance.  
   
  
• Confirm the worker’s right to be accompanied and to make representations. Keep investigation and disciplinary roles separate; use an impartial note-taker (not management who are witnesses), retain minutes, and follow your handbook step-by-step. 
   
  
• Never “ambush” staff with ad-hoc meetings or confront them on the shop floor. Avoid physical contact and keep the tone professional. Do not impose transfers, reduced hours, or other measures that feel punitive before findings; if temporary redeployment is necessary, consult, document that it’s non-disciplinary, protect pay/status, and set a review date.  
   
  
• Distinguish clearly between fact-finding and disciplinary stages and confirm every step in writing. Train managers on fair procedures and dignity at work, and audit to ensure consistency, proportionality, and GDPR-compliant record-keeping. 
  

The full case can be found here.