This claim arose following an Adjudication Officer’s decision which ordered that the Complainant, Mr. Hurley, be re-engaged to his former position with his employer, An Post.  Mr. Hurley had been dismissed by the Respondent on the 14th of June 2019 for gross misconduct and claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed.

In July 2018, the Respondent received an email from one of their commercial clients advising that a female member of staff had alleged that the Complainant had acted in an inappropriate manner which made her feel extremely uncomfortable.

The Complainant was asked to attend a meeting at the Respondent’s regional office in Cork and was advised that a serious allegation had been made against him by an employee of a named client. The Complainant was advised that he was being placed on suspension with immediate effect, on full pay to allow for the matter to be investigated. The Complainant was provided with a letter of suspension. The Complainant was provided with copies of the minutes of the meetings and invited to submit any comments he had in respect of same, but no comments were submitted. The Complainant was advised by letter of the 7th of June 2019 that his appeal was unsuccessful, and he was dismissed with effect from the 14th of June 2019.

The Complainant submitted that dismissal was not an appropriate sanction in this case and stated that he had not been provided with any documents or statements of one of the meetings. Counsel for the Complainant also submitted that there were other procedural failures such as the failure of the Respondent to provide additional CCTV footage which was requested by the Complainant. Further, counsel for the Complainant argued that Mr. Graham, head of employee relations with the Respondent, should not have been allowed to hear the appeal as he had been involved in the initial disciplinary meetings to dismiss the Complainant.

The court noted that the Complainant had put forward differing accounts of what transpired on the day and failed to provide the phone records that he promised to produce. Ultimately, the court concluded that dismissal was an appropriate sanction to take by the Respondent and that it was proportionate in the circumstances and within the band of reasonableness.

The Court then had to decide if the dismissal was fair. It was never put to the Court how that the CCTV footage would have benefitted the Complainant or what disadvantage he suffered by not having access to it. On that basis, the Court could not find that not having this additional footage was detrimental to the process. No submission was made to the Court to demonstrate that the Complainant had been disadvantaged in terms of the outcome as a result of the alleged breach of fair procedure.

The Court was informed that the Respondent’s disciplinary procedure is the norm in this employment and both the Complainant, and his Representative were aware that this was the procedure and raised no objections at the time.

Considering all the circumstances, the Court was of the view that the decision to dismiss fell within the “range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer” and therefore, the Court determined that the decision to dismiss was fair.  The Court determined that the appeal was well-founded and set aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

Guidelines for Employers

When considering if an employee was given an appropriate course of disciplinary action, the court will have regard to the following factors to determine if the employers actions were in fact reasonable:

• Did the company believe that the employee misconducted himself as alleged?

• if so, did the company have reasonable grounds to sustain that belief?

• if so, was the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the alleged misconduct

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/march/udd2216.html