The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a General Operative from the 7th of March 2010 until the 7th of May 2020, when his employment was terminated on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Complainant claimed that he was unfairly dismissed from his position and that the manner in which the dismissal was carried out was lacking in procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment and submitted that he was dismissed as a result of gross misconduct. The Respondent pleaded that the Complainant had been afforded fair procedures at all stages through the disciplinary process.

The Complainant sustained an injury at work on the 17th of March 2020 and was subsequently certified unfit for work by the Company Doctor until the 17th of April 2020. The Complainant stated that he sustained this injury while ushering cattle into a holding pen and that the accident would not have happened if the Respondent had been adhering to its standard procedures for this process.

The Complainant submitted that he received a letter to his home from the Respondent, requesting him to attend an investigation meeting into allegations of breach of trust and dishonesty. The Complainant stated that this letter did not provide any further detail in relation to the nature of the allegations, and the letter further indicated that he was being placed on suspension for the duration of the investigation.

At the meeting, the Respondent claimed that they had obtained evidence to indicate that the Complainant was working on his private farm while absent on certified sick leave. The Complainant stated that he was presented with 60 photographs by the Respondent at the investigation meeting which were taken by a private investigator and had been obtained without his consent. The Complainant further stated that the tasks that he was carrying out when photographed by the private investigator were only menial tasks and were not labour intensive.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to separate the investigation from the disciplinary process and that the questioning at the disciplinary meeting appeared to follow the same pattern as the initial investigation meeting.

The Complainant received a letter from the Respondent on the 7th of May 2020 to confirm his dismissal in writing and the reasons proffered were “fundamental breach of trust and honesty”.

The Complainant subsequently appealed the decision to dismiss him to the Site Operations Manager and the appeal was not upheld.

The Complainant submitted that his dismissal was procedurally unfair, and that the Respondent failed to follow its own internal procedures which was in breach of natural justice.  The Complainant claims that there was a disregard for fairness in relation to the manner which the Respondent carried out the disciplinary process that led to dismissal, right up to and including the appeal.

The Respondent submitted that the Company adhered to the principles of natural justice and fair procedures at all times and that the Complainant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to consider and respond to the allegations. The Respondent also contended that the Complainant contributed fully to his dismissal through his actions.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the dismissal of the Complainant was not in dispute and therefore, it was for the Respondent to establish that in the circumstances of this case the dismissal was fair.

The Adjudication Officer considered if dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses that an employer would have taken in the same circumstances. The Adjudication Officer was satisfied that there were a number of fundamental aspects of the process which did not meet the required standards of procedural fairness.  The Adjudication Officer further noted that it was clear from the evidence adduced that the Complainant was totally unaware of the precise nature of the allegations.

In the circumstances, the Respondent found that the Complainant’s dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair and ordered that the sum of €10,000 be paid to the Complainant.

Guidance for Employers

This case demonstrated the legal principles to be observed by an Employer to support a decision to terminate employment for misconduct, as set out in the case of Samuel J. Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union [1997] IEHC137:

1. The complaint must be a bona fide complaint unrelated to any other agenda of the Complainant.

2. Where the Complainant is a person or body of intermediate authority, it should state the complaint, factually, clearly and fairly without any innuendo or hidden inference or conclusion.

3. The employee should be interviewed, and his version noted and furnished to the deciding authority contemporaneously with the complaint and again without comment.

4. The decision of the deciding authority should be based on the balance of probabilities flowing from the factual evidence and in the light of the explanation offered.

5. The actual decision, as to whether a dismissal should follow, should be a decision proportionate to the gravity of the complaint, and of the gravity and effect of dismissal on the employee.

The most important take away point from the above is that the principles of natural justice must be unequivocally applied.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/april/adj-00028372.html