This appeal involved a complaint that the complainant had been dismissed by their employer. The fact of dismissal was not in dispute.

The facts which led to the dismissal are summarised as follows: on the 19th of September 2015 the complainant arrived late for work and had been driving erratically which resulted in a member of the public contacting the Gardaí. According to his shift co-ordinator he had looked like somebody who was drunk, he was unable to walk correctly and would not make eye contact. The complainant was immediately removed from the production floor and when questioned became aggressive and a smell of alcohol was detected by the shift co-ordinator. Before sending the complainant home the shift co-ordinator asked him if he had been drinking alcohol and the complainant agreed he had 'about four hours ago'. He was offered a lift home but he decided to walk instead. 

The HR department subsequently sought to arrange an investigatory meeting to explore the allegations. The complainant agreed that he had probably said that he had been drinking on the 19th of September, however it was not actually true. He stated that he had taken herbal drops and the smell of alcohol was from prescribed medication. The complainant was subsequently asked to attend a disciplinary meeting to explore the allegations further.  Notably, the employee was offered the right to bring an employee representative to both meetings but declined to do so. 

Following the disciplinary meeting a decision was made to dismiss the complainant immediately based on gross misconduct and he was offered the right to make an appeal within 10 days. He did not appeal the decision. The Court found that on the balance of probability it was entirely reasonable for the employer's representative to conclude that the complainant had attended work under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he was unfit for work.

The Court held that the investigation and disciplinary procedures were carried out fairly, that any failings were not of such a significance as to render the dismissal procedurally unfair and that the complainant was given adequate opportunity to state his case and address allegations. The Court also stated that there is an obligation on the complainant to exhaust all available internal procedures and appeals. Accordingly, the Court found that the decision to dismiss was proportionate in light of the events.