This case involved a claim that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed. The Respondent did not dispute the fact that the Complainant had been dismissed but claimed he had been dismissed for gross insubordination. There had been an issue between the Complainant and his supervisor on the 12th May 2016, resulting in the Complainant asking to speak to the operations manager. This incident included the Complainant telling another supervisor he did not trust his supervisor.

The Complainant was subsequently out sick for a couple of days and on his return the operations manager asked for him to explain what had happened. As he was finishing his shift that day he was handed a letter requesting him to attend an investigation the next day. It was not disputed that the Complainant was not provided with a copy of the complaint against him, denied access to witnesses and to notes of the investigation meeting. The investigation was also conducted beyond the terms of reference.

The Respondent admitted that previous behaviour had been considered, but felt that due process had been followed with the conduct complained of amounting to gross insubordination justifying the dismissal. The Court found that the Complainant had not followed reasonable instruction on the day in question but were not satisfied that same constituted a substantial ground justifying dismissal. The Court agreed that procedural fairness had not been afforded to the Complainant and therefore held that the dismissal was unfair.

"The Court is satisfied from the submissions and the oral submissions made on the day that the Complainant did not follow a reasonable instruction. However, the Court is not satisfied that failure to do so reaches the bar for gross insubordination or meets the requirement in the circumstances of this case of being a “substantial ground”. In relation to the process followed the Court has concerns that issues were taken into account that in a procedural context were not related to the investigation of the incident of 12thMay 2016 as set out in the terms of reference and that the Complainant was denied access to witnesses and notes of the investigation meeting. Taking into account all the above the Court cannot see how this dismissal could be deemed to be fair."

Accordingly, the Court awarded compensation of €10,000 to the Complainant as they felt that reinstatement or re-engagement would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2017/December/UDD1754.html