This case involved a claim of unfair dismissal. The complainant, a courier/van driver had been summarily dismissed following an incident involving his van in October 2015. The complainant had previously been involved in a number of incidents which had resulted in both a written warning and a final written warning.

Following the October 2015 accident an investigation meeting was held by the Service Centre Manager. During this meeting, CCTV footage was reviewed (but it had failed to record the incident) and the complainant himself admitted that he had misjudged the space available to him when driving. Subsequently, a letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to attend a disciplinary hearing and was advised that the incident could be considered as gross misconduct as it was potentially a failure to protect and safeguard company property.

At the disciplinary hearing the complainant once again admitted responsibility for his actions. However, extensive reference was made, by the Respondent's representative, to the complainant's past driving incidents and the historic final written warning. Following the meeting the complainant was informed by letter that he was being summarily dismissed, with immediate effect, for gross misconduct.

That letter also recited several additional grounds justifying the decision to dismiss the complainant, including the previous warnings which had long expired. The complainant appealed the summary dismissal but this failed.

The Court found that the decision to summarily dismiss the complainant on grounds which were not referred to at either the investigation stage or in the initial letter was questionable. Likewise, the final decision was based on different grounds than those which formed the basis of the disciplinary process. The Court emphasised that the complainant's misjudgement while driving did not belong to the category of 'very bad behaviour of such kind that no reasonable employer could be expected to tolerate the continuance of the relationship for a minute longer', particularly given the fact the complainant was permitted to drive the company vehicle for 2 weeks after the incident.

The Court concluded that the sanction of summary dismissal was disproportionate, unfair and unwarranted, particularly given the fact that the complainant's previous incidents clearly influenced the respondent's decision. The complainant was awarded compensation of €72,042.88.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2017/July/UDD1738.html