• Complainant: Artur Marecki

• Respondent: Board of Management Scoil Pádraig Naofa 
  
  Unfair Dismissal led to zero award. 

The Complainant worked (at a school) for 17 years, stating she demonstrated consistent dedication and performing tasks outside her contracted hours. During this time, she did not receive payslips for the past 5-6 years and experienced minimal pay increases. Following a battle with cancer, she returned to work in 2024 but discovered her replacement earned a higher hourly rate, which she perceived as unfair given her long-standing commitment and contributions. She subsequently decided to resign from her full-time role. In June 2024, the principal convened a meeting with the Complainant, during which she was accused of leaving work an hour early. The Complainant acknowledged the error but felt the tone of the discussion was accusatory. She raised concerns about unpaid entitlements, which were not addressed during the meeting. Following the interaction, which included contentious remarks, the Complainant concluded that the work environment was no longer tenable and decided against returning. The Complainant made multiple requests for her payslips and submitted a data access request, which she stated was not fulfilled. She later received an offer for back pay covering 2023-24 but noted it excluded earlier years. She cited this experience as a significant factor in her loss of trust in the administration.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant, employed as a cleaner/caretaker since 2006, was terminated for gross misconduct due to falsification of work hours. The Principal, in his testimony, recounted the Complainant’s long tenure, acknowledging his commitment and contributions but detailing suspicions that arose after discrepancies were observed in the Complainant’s work diary. Specific instances were cited, supported by evidence from the school secretary, showing the Complainant had logged hours while absent from the premises. On June 18, 2024, the Complainant attended a meeting with the Principal and the Chairperson of the Board of Management (BOM). The Respondent stated that the Complainant arrived late, displayed aggression, and admitted to falsifying hours, justifying his actions by claiming dissatisfaction with his pay. Following this encounter, management determined the conduct constituted gross misconduct and terminated the Complainant’s employment effective immediately. The Complainant was informed of his right to appeal within seven days, as outlined in the grievance procedure, but no appeal was lodged. The Respondent emphasised the seriousness of the Complainant's actions, the lack of prior discussion about pay dissatisfaction, and the necessity of maintaining integrity and trust in the workplace, which they deemed irreparably damaged by the Complainant’s actions.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 due to the Respondent's failure to conduct a fair and thorough investigation. Although the Respondent had a genuine belief, based on evidence from the school secretary, that the Complainant had falsified his hours, the dismissal process lacked procedural fairness. The Respondent did not formally investigate the allegations or provide the Complainant an opportunity for representation, as required in cases of alleged misconduct. While the Complainant contributed fully to the situation by falsifying records, which amounted to gross misconduct, the procedural flaws in handling the dismissal rendered it unfair. The Adjudicator acknowledged that the Complainant failed to exercise his right to appeal and noted the Respondent's efforts to address the situation post-dismissal. Given the Complainant contributed 100% to the situation, compensation was deemed inappropriate, and the award was set at nil.

Employers should:

• Conduct a Fair Investigation: Ensure allegations of misconduct are thoroughly and impartially investigated, allowing the employee to respond and have representation.
• Adhere to Fair Procedures: Adhere strictly to grievance and disciplinary procedures, providing clear communication and documenting all steps taken to ensure compliance.
• Proportionality Matters: Consider whether the dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct, aligning with the "range of reasonable responses" test for fairness.
   
  

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/adj-00052519.html