The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 1998. In January 2008, the Complainant was promoted to the position of a coordinator of an education programme for early school leavers. The sequence of events leading to the Complainant’s dismissal began with a protected disclosure made against the Complainant in June 2018 which outlined a number of charges against him. The Complainant was ultimately dismissed in January 2019.

The Complainant contended that there was an inadequate examination and testing by the Respondent of the charges made in the protected disclosure. The Complainant also maintained that he was not provided with an adequate opportunity to test the allegations. The Respondent then initiated a disciplinary process which denied the Complainant’s right to fair procedures.

The investigation by the investigator of the charges was faulty as the report failed to show who was in attendance at the hearings and key dates of meetings. The investigator also failed to provide the Complainant with important documents in advance of the hearing.

The Respondent claimed that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct after a thorough investigation and disciplinary hearing conducted in accordance with fair procedures. The Respondent received a detailed protected disclosure which included charges that the Complainant facilitated reduced hours and enhanced paid leave facilities for his wife; lack of transparency concerning the management of cash from the vending machine, and missing property from the centre in which the Complainant was employed.

The Adjudication Officer noted that the notes of the protected disclosure investigatory meetings did not contain a denial by the Complainant of the allegations, merely ignorance on his part of the correct procedures. The Complainant did not deny the allegations put against him. The Adjudication Officer accepted that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that the dismissal was not unfair. The evidence provided showed that the relationship of trust and confidence was misplaced if not abused. However, the Adjudication Officer found that there were procedural defects which therefore rendered the dismissal to be unfair on procedural grounds. Therefore, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €2,422.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/may/adj-00020835.html