In a world where employment laws are consistently changing and evolving, one steadfast principle remains – the role of fair procedures in the disciplinary process. Below, the EY Law Ireland Employment Law team discusses a number of recent WRC decisions which confirm that, even where substantive grounds for disciplinary action exist, procedural missteps will expose leaving employers exposed.

Right reason, wrong procedure

Legal Island readers will be all too familiar with headlines that announce “shock” unfair dismissal decisions in circumstances that suggest questionable behaviour on the part of the employee. But take a closer look at these decisions, and more often than not, it transpires that procedural errors occurred and had a more transparent and robust process been followed, the outcome may well have been different.

Fair procedures in Irish disciplinary processes

So what constitutes a fair process under Irish law? In short, employers must follow the principles of natural justice and fair procedures when managing any disciplinary process. These requirements are reflected in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, (the “UD Act”). While stopping short of prescribing a step by step disciplinary process, the UD Act does impose several legal duties on employers that directly shape how disciplinary procedures must operate. This includes a requirement that employers demonstrate both substantive grounds and fair procedures when defending a dismissal. These duties interact with (and are reinforced by) the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146/2000) (the “COP”) which (although not legally binding) is regularly cited by the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) and Labour Court as the benchmark for procedural fairness. 

At its simplest, fair procedures require transparency, impartiality, and the opportunity to be heard. In practical terms, this includes: notifying employees of allegations; allowing time and access to evidence; conducting an impartial investigation; separating roles; ensuring a fair hearing; applying proportionate sanctions; and providing a genuine right of appeal. Below is a helpful overview of some of the core elements of fair procedures as established in Irish law and practice:

Recent cases reinforce the position

We may only be two months into the new year, but there have already been a number of decisions on this point.

A January 2026 WRC case illustrates how investigative independence remains a core requirement. In Natasza  Korajda-v- Stephen Hamilton Financial Services T/A Mortgageline, a long-standing employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed after her employer discovered she was preparing to launch a rival firm. While the employer argued it had legitimate concerns regarding access to client data and potential competition, the WRC determined that the dismissal was unfair due to lack of independence in the investigation process. This case provides a good example of what, on paper, should have been an arguable case, but was ultimately undermined by procedural errors. Had the employer appointed an independent investigator and allowed a structured opportunity for the employee to respond, the outcome may well have been different. 

Interestingly, the WRC had regard to the Complainant’s contribution to the dismissal. While her loss was calculated at approximately €18,600 (or 7 weeks’ income), the Adjudicator considered, having regard to all the circumstances, that the final award should be 25% of the financial loss, being €4,650.

February 2026 saw another WRC decision consider shortfalls in a disciplinary process, demonstrating the consequences of ambiguous allegations and insufficient notice. This case considered termination of employment following alleged misconduct in the workplace (including use of bad language and alleged insubordination) in circumstances where the employer had “…failed to afford the Complainant fair procedure”. The Adjudication Officer noted in her decision that “The key purpose of a disciplinary procedure is to afford an employer the opportunity to set out the concerns it may have about the conduct or poor performance of an employee and at the same time, afford the employee the opportunity to answer the allegations and make representations as to why he / she should not be disciplined or dismissed. This is enshrined in [the COP]”.

Ultimately, ambiguity over the allegations against the employee and in particular, a failure to make clear “details concerning the complaints and allegations against the Complainant” led the Adjudicator to conclude that the Respondent had “…failed to afford the Complainant fair procedures and that this failure rendered the dismissal outside the band of reasonableness and therefore unfair”. 

Once again, the Complainant’s contribution to his dismissal and failure to adequately mitigate his loss contributed to a relatively low award in this instance (four weeks’ pay, or approximately €2,760) which, presumably would have been higher in the absence of these factors.

A third (February 2026) WRC decision reinforced that even robust factual evidence cannot compensate for procedural gaps in a disciplinary process, with a car sales employee awarded €10,000 for unfair dismissal, despite substantial evidence suggesting he orchestrated an “around the corner” private purchase of a customer’s trade in vehicle. 

In this case, the employer undertook a detailed investigation into altered records and alleged attempts to bypass dealership processes. This led them to believe that the employee had engaged in misconduct serious enough to warrant dismissal. However, the WRC emphasised that, while the employer may have had reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct, the process used to verify those suspicions did not meet the required standard of fair procedures. Failures included: short notice of the disciplinary meeting and a failure to provide details of the evidence against the complainant in advance of that meeting; a lack of documentation (meeting minutes; investigation report); an “absence of impartiality” where the investigation and decision-making roles were carried out by the same individual. 

In deciding on the appropriate award, the Adjudicator noted that the Complainant failed to adequately mitigate his loss until June 2025 (his employment being terminated in November 2024). In keeping with these recent WRC decisions, the Adjudicator also had regard to the employee’s contribution to their dismissal when assessing compensation, citing the Supreme Court case Carney v Balkan Tours Ltd (20 January 1997, 34/96).

Conclusion and takeaways

There are no surprises in these recent decisions. Rather, they reinforce longstanding principles of fair procedures in disciplinary processes (particularly transparency and impartiality). We are also reminded that, even where legitimate grounds to suspect misconduct exist, procedural defects will not be tolerated by the WRC. While some comfort can be taken by the consistent approach towards contribution and mitigation in calculating compensation, these cases also reaffirm the importance of thorough, impartial, and transparent disciplinary processes. With that in mind, we recommend that HR professionals and management with disciplinary responsibilities take this opportunity to:

(1)    review their processes for alignment with the COP/the steps set out above; and 
(2)    ensure that managers are trained not only on the steps but the underlying principles of natural justice.

*Overviews and suggestions in this article are by their nature high-level and do not constitute legal advice. Disciplinary and conduct matters vary significantly from one case to another and legal advice should be obtained on a case-by-case basis.