Background:

The Complainant was employed as a verger, a role which has both ceremonial and practical duties for the Respondent, which is a place of worship and heritage site.  The Complainant had been employed in a variety of roles by the Respondent from 1 June 2013. The Complainant had been subject to a number of interventions from the Respondent regarding his timekeeping and use of alcohol and prescribed medications from November 2018 to the date of his dismissal on 18 December 2019. In the last incident, the Complainant attended work late, missing morning prayer (which he was required to attend in a liturgical capacity). Upon arrival, two colleagues observed he had an odour of alcohol. The Complainant was sent home and, after a thorough investigatory procedure, was invited to a disciplinary hearing, at which he was dismissed. The Complainant appealed and attempted to have a trade union representative make a submission of mitigation on his behalf at this appeal hearing, but this opportunity was denied.

The Complainant alleged that the failure to provide him the opportunity to have trade union representation at his appeal hearing was procedurally unfair, therefore making his dismissal unfair. In addition, the Complainant said the decision to dismiss him for the reasons described by the Respondent were outside the “band of reasonableness” which any employer could operate, given the circumstances.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer, having heard detailed arguments from both sides, found that despite a very strong investigation and disciplinary procedure, the Respondent’s dismissal of the Complainant was unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds. On the procedural ground, the Respondent’s failure to allow the Complainant’s trade union representative made submissions on his behalf during the appeals hearing was unfair and contrary to the Code of Practice issued by the WRC. On the substantive ground, the decision to dismiss was unfair and outside the employer’s “band of reasonableness” given the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s medical history and their failure to refer the Complainant to an occupational health specialist for evaluation to ensure his difficulties were not caused by a medical issue and to ensure he was fit to engage in the investigatory, disciplinary and appeals processes. The Complainant provided no evidence that he attempted to mitigate his financial loss, and so despite suffering a financial loss of €54,000 over the course of almost two years, the Adjudication Officer directed compensation of €18,000.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers can engage in a “flawless” investigation process and a fair disciplinary procedure, like in this case, and can still be found to have unfairly dismissed if care is not taken at all stages of a dismissal process.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/october/adj-00027984.html