This case involved an appeal against a decision made by the Adjudication Officer. The complainant had claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and the fact of dismissal was not in dispute between the parties.

The complainant was a security operative in a hotel who was subject to a complaint by a female guest. The guest had complained that the complainant told her that he was aware she had been kissing a man the night before and that he had been watching the CCTV footage of it. She claimed that the complainant had brought her and a female friend to the security base and showed them the CCTV footage, while making offensive and inappropriate sexual comments to her.

The respondent company alleged that the complainant had breached security procedures by bringing the guest into the security base without authorisation and had failed to report the incident or fill in an incident report. The respondent, while considering the appropriate sanction, regarded the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant's response to same.

The complainant was invited, by letter, to an investigation meeting and was advised of the allegations against him, along with notification of his suspension. The investigation procedure was concluded following 2 investigation meetings and the matter proceeded to a disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing was conducted and subsequently, at a disciplinary outcome meeting, the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct with immediate effect, in circumstances where the bond of trust had been completely destroyed.

The complainant exercised his right of appeal but the decision to dismiss was upheld. The complainant claimed that he had never been provided with procedures regarding who could enter the security base and in practice non-security personnel often entered the base. The Court held that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair as the investigating person conducted 2 overlapping disciplinary processes at the one time and the person who dealt with the appeal had made no independent enquiry into the procedures which the complainant had allegedly breached. However, the Court found that the complainant had significantly contributed to the loss he had suffered and was 80% responsible for his dismissal. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to him was reduced proportionately to €6,000.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/March/UDD1817.html