The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer with the Respondent from February 2018 until his dismissal in March 2020, following which the Complainant lodged a complaint of unfair dismissal.  The Respondent refuted the claim for unfair dismissal and argued that the dismissal was justified through the Complainant’s gross misconduct. The Respondent contended that the action of assault taken against a customer, who was a minor, amounted to an action contrary to the company’s culture and values and warranted dismissal.

The Complainant was taken aback by the circumstances of his dismissal, which he argued was disproportionate. He stated that he had a clean disciplinary record prior to the incident which culminated in his dismissal. He also submitted that the manner of the dismissal had caused him stress and vulnerability as he was supporting family.  The incident involved a customer who had approached a self-scanning till where the Complainant worked. The customer, whom it was alleged had been declined earlier entry to the shop for alleged shoplifting, disregarded the Complainant’s direction that he leave the shop as he would not be served. The Complainant then intervened to block the transaction and while doing so, there was a slight shuffle where the customer attacked the Complainant and the Complainant hit him. The customer left the store.

On the next day, the Complainant received a call from the Respondent’s rostering department instructing him not to attend work as over 20 people were waiting for him. He understood these people to be linked to the customer. The Complainant was suspended pending investigation of the incident.  The Complainant stated he was innocent and that he had worked hard for the Respondent and did not deserve to be dismissed.

The Respondent outlined that the investigation was governed by fair procedures. The Complainant was aware of the allegations against him and was provided with an opportunity to respond to these and present his response. He was offered representation at all stages but chose not to avail of it. The Respondent also highlighted that the Complainant was afforded a fair and impartial determination of the issues - decision makers were impartial, with no previous involvement and the Complainant had been given a right of appeal. The Respondent concluded their submission by affirming that the Complainant deviated from the company’s standard operational procedure on management of a security risk and trust and confidence within the employment relationship had disappeared.  The complainant told the hearing that he had not received sight of his letter of dismissal until April 21. His salary paid during suspension an investigation had ceased on 14 March. The timeline for appeal had passed.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the investigation at 20 minutes duration, fell far short of best practice and concluded that it was injurious to the complainant and the respondent did not probe when the complainant said he was stressed or when he apologised.  The Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent accelerated towards dismissal without any consideration of lesser sanctions and on that basis agreed that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant the sum of €13,420.80.  The Adjudication Officer also made a point of requesting that the Respondent review their Disciplinary policy on the management of a procedural framework in the case of alleged gross misconduct.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/april/adj-00028004.html