Employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed due to a procedurally flawed and unjust disciplinary process.

The Complainant, employed part-time since 2020, claimed she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent in April 2024. Initially enjoying her role, she described a deteriorating workplace culture, stemming from historical conflict with a colleague and increasing tensions. Despite reporting issues to management, no interventions followed. She was later required to train a new manager and continued supervising up to 35 staff. By March 2024, she was given allegations based on staff complaints, which she strongly denied. The Complainant maintained that the investigation lacked fairness, with no CCTV footage provided to support her defence and no credible evidence presented beyond hearsay. She expressed frustration that recent hires were favoured over her and declined to appeal the dismissal, believing the outcome was predetermined. After her dismissal, she secured a lower-paid, part-time role. The Complainant insisted that the allegations were fabricated and her dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.

The Respondent denied the claim of unfair dismissal and asserted that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following a fair, objective, and procedurally compliant disciplinary process. The dismissal stemmed from complaints raised by staff in February 2024, prompting an investigation. The Complainant was provided with documentation, afforded representation, and invited to respond at all stages, including the disciplinary hearing in April 2024. Five allegations were raised, with four upheld. Dismissal was deemed the only proportionate sanction, as alternatives were considered unsuitable. The Complainant was offered an appeal but did not pursue it. The Respondent maintained that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and criticised the Complainant's limited efforts to mitigate.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the working environment was marked by interpersonal conflict and staff complaints, yet the Respondent failed to follow its own internal procedures for managing intra-employee issues. A formal complaint was not shared with the Complainant until nearly two months later, and the allegations presented lacked specificity, context, and clarity. The Complainant was excluded from a key staff engagement process despite being the subject of complaints discussed at that meeting. The suspension imposed during the investigation was found to be punitive and unjustified. The disciplinary hearing lacked appropriate separation of roles and impartiality. Overall, the investigation and disciplinary process were deemed procedurally unfair, and the dismissal was not supported by substantial grounds. The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed and awarded €12,500.

Employers should:                

• Employers operating in environments such as hospitality must ensure that internal complaint procedures are clearly defined, consistently applied, and prioritise early, informal resolution wherever possible. Allegations between colleagues should be addressed promptly and transparently, with written complaints disclosed in full to the person concerned.     
   
  
• Investigations must follow natural justice, including timely notification of allegations, opportunity to respond, and impartial oversight. Suspending an employee should be a last resort, not a default action, and only where there is a clear risk to the business or investigation.   
   
  
• All steps taken should be documented, proportionate, and in line with policy. Employers should ensure that disciplinary processes are distinct from investigatory roles, and that decisions are based on verifiable facts rather than vague claims or hearsay. Finally, staff must be afforded the right to appeal, and that right must be clearly communicated and honoured in accordance with policy timeframes.

The full case can be found here.