Background:

The Respondent accepted that there was a decision to dismiss, but the decision was fair. As a result, the Respondent gave evidence first. The Respondent is a manufacturer of circuit boards which are used for camera systems it manufactures. Part of this manufacturing process was a visual inspection process which the Respondent said was critical to identify problems, and to facilitate this visual inspection, there is a specified system time delay of 0.8 seconds during which the SMT Operator would press a button to pass the product to the next stage. The Respondent learned that this pause was being overridden by workers from time to time to deliberately bypass this visual inspection process. After an investigation the Respondent gave evidence that they discovered the Complainant’s production line was faster than would be expected had the delays been in place. The Respondent undertook a formal investigation and disciplinary process, and, having determined the act of bypassing the inspection process resulted in a complete breakdown of trust in the employment relationship and constituted gross misconduct.

In response, the Complainant alleged the processes used to investigate and discipline him were unfair and insufficient, including an allegation that by finding his actions as “gross misconduct”, the investigation stage had already pre-determined the outcome of the disciplinary process to necessarily result in dismissal. The Complainant alleged that he was instructed to bypass the inspection delays by his line manager and that his actions, if found to have happened as described, did not amount to gross misconduct.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer, applying the case law in respect of unfair dismissals and how they are evaluated, found that the procedures afforded to the Complainant were procedurally fair in the circumstances. The Adjudication Officer also found that the decision to find the Complainant had engaged in the acts alleged and that those acts constituted “gross misconduct” was within the “band of reasonable responses” available to the Respondent. The determination that the conduct amounted to “gross misconduct” did not necessarily mean that dismissal was a foregone conclusion and the decision to dismiss was one that a reasonable employer could have come to in the circumstances.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

In an unfair dismissal claim, an employer has the obligation to defend any dismissal that they effect if they agree that a dismissal did in fact happen. In doing this, they must meet two standards: procedural fairness and substantive fairness. If procedural fairness is met, as was the case here, an adjudication officer is required to provide a large “margin of appreciation” to the substantive decision to dismiss, and is only entitled to find a dismissal “unfair” if the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable employer could have arrived at that decision. If an employer meets their procedural requirements, their substantive decision is likely to be accepted.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/june/adj-00027955.html