A social care worker was unfairly dismissed due to procedural flaws in the disciplinary process, with the WRC awarding €12,500 after finding the investigation lacked fairness and impartiality.

The Complainant was employed as a Social Care Worker from January 2007 until January 2022, when he was dismissed following a disciplinary process. The Complainant argued that his dismissal was unfair on three grounds, i.e., procedural unfairness, retaliation for a protected disclosure, and discrimination due to his trade union activity. He claimed the Respondent repeatedly failed to follow its own procedures, particularly in dealing with complaints he made from June 2021 to the time of his dismissal. He stated that these grievances were treated inconsistently compared to those that ultimately led to his termination. Further, he submitted he made protected disclosures concerning medication errors and improper conduct by managers.These disclosures were escalated internally and to HIQA, but he received no meaningful response. He also emphasised his trade union involvement and efforts to recruit members, suggesting this contributed to the decision to terminate him. The Complainant maintained that the dismissal process lacked fairness. He said no proper investigation occurred, key evidence was inaccurate, and he was not allowed to address aspects of the disciplinary process. He described the process as biased and retaliatory, citing false allegations and a flawed appeal procedure. He further asserted that the situation had irreparably damaged his professional career in social care, leaving him with limited employment options. He sought reinstatement to his previous role.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and argued the dismissal was lawful and proportionate. The Respondent stated that the dismissal stemmed from two inappropriate and derogatory comments allegedly made by the complainant regarding service users. These were reported by a colleague weeks later, prompting a suspension and subsequent disciplinary hearing. The Respondent asserted that the Complainant was given full details of the allegations, relevant documentation, and an opportunity to respond, both at the disciplinary and appeal stages. Although the Complainant denied wrongdoing, the disciplinary panel concluded that he had made the remarks and had acted in breach of the Code of Conduct and Equal Opportunities policies. Dismissal for gross misconduct followed and upheld on appeal. The Respondent contended that the process followed fair procedures in line with the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. It submitted that the decision to dismiss fell within the “range of reasonable responses” open to an employer, particularly given the sensitive nature of the work.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed due to procedural flaws in the disciplinary process. Although the dismissal arose from two comments deemed gross misconduct, the Respondent failed to establish who made that determination or to apply appropriate investigative procedures. The Complainant was not interviewed, nor was the Complainant’s accuser, and key issues such as possible witness bias and procedural fairness were inadequately addressed. As reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to poor relations between the parties, compensation of €12,500 was awarded for lost earnings.

Employers should:

• Ensure clear and transparent disciplinary processes: Employers must strictly adhere to fair procedures and natural justice principles in disciplinary actions. This includes clearly identifying who makes decisions at each stage, conducting a proper investigation, and ensuring that allegations are fully put to the employee in advance.
  
  
• Avoid presumptions of misconduct without evidence: Allegations must be carefully assessed and not automatically escalated to gross misconduct unless clearly supported by evidence and policy. Ambiguous or colloquial language should not be deemed misconduct without contextual consideration. The disciplinary decision should be proportionate, and any reasoning must be clearly documented and justified.
  
  
• Address conflicts and bias proactively: Where a complainant or witness has a conflict or grievance with the employee under investigation, potential bias must be addressed transparently. Employers should also ensure appeals are impartial and provide genuine opportunities for employees to challenge decisions and present mitigating factors.

The full case can be found here.