Background:

The Complainant, representing himself, challenged his dismissal for alleged gross misconduct by the Respondent company. He was accused of using a company van for personal travel and interfering with its electronic tracker, leading to a disciplinary meeting in December 2023, and dismissal following further meetings that week. The Complainant claimed his dismissal was a pretext to favour another employee amid the company's financial difficulties. He argued the accusations were fabricated, highlighting inconsistencies in the company’s practices, such as allowing private van use for personal activities, including his transport of motorbikes and his daughter's sports events. He also pointed out the Respondent’s use of company vans for leisure. No formal HR processes, investigations, or warnings were provided, and he was denied an independent appeal. He maintained that cost-cutting measures unjustly targeted him while overlooking his contributions, including using his personal vehicle for company work.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant’s dismissal was justified due to serious breaches of trust. In March 2022, the Respondent installed electronic tracking devices on all company vans to monitor costs and vehicle usage. Despite clear communication to employees and inclusion in contracts, unusual activity emerged with the Complainant’s van, including the tracking device being unplugged and unrecorded mileage exceeding 1,000 miles. The Respondent covertly installed a hard-wired tracker, confirming discrepancies between devices. Evidence presented at the disciplinary meeting highlighted significant unexplained mileage and deliberate tracker disconnections. The Complainant denied the allegations, citing common employee practices. However, the Respondent deemed the tracker tampering a severe breach of trust and issued a dismissal letter. The Respondent emphasised that such actions irreparably damaged the employer-employee relationship, making continuation of employment untenable.

Finding:

The Adjudicating Officer found significant procedural deficiencies in the Respondent's handling of the dismissal. Natural justice principles (as outlined in legal precedents such as Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union) were not adhered to. The Complainant was not fully briefed in advance, had minimal input in the investigation, and was not afforded an independent appeal. Additionally, the same individual conducted both the investigation and disciplinary hearing, raising questions about fairness. Despite procedural flaws, the Complainant's actions significantly contributed to the dismissal, influencing the decision on redress. Reinstatement or re-engagement was deemed unsuitable due to a breakdown of trust. Financial compensation of €10,000 was awarded, reflecting both the procedural unfairness and the Complainant's partial responsibility. Other claims under the Organisation of Working Time Act and the Payment of Wages Act were withdrawn.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should:

• Adhere to Natural Justice Principles: Ensure employees are fully briefed on allegations against them, provided with an opportunity to respond, and informed of the evidence before disciplinary decisions are made.
• Separate Investigation and Disciplinary Roles: Assign different individuals to conduct the investigation and oversee disciplinary hearings to maintain objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest.
• Provide an Independent Appeal Process: Offer employees the right to appeal decisions to an independent party, ensuring a fair and transparent resolution process.
• Consistent Application of Company Policies: Clearly communicate and enforce policies uniformly. Avoid creating ambiguities by permitting exceptions to rules, as these can undermine trust and weaken your position in disputes.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/adj-00050150.html