This is an appeal by Fit 4 life Gym Limited (hereafter the Respondent) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00030571 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 (the Act’s) in a claim by Megan Healy (hereafter the Complainant) that she was unfairly dismissed. The Adjudication Officer upheld her complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded compensation of €21,736.

By way of background to the case - the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a gym manager on the 25th of February 2019. On the 29th of February 2020 she was dismissed from her position with the Respondent.

The Respondent submitted that in all the circumstances the decision to dismiss was fair, accepting that while there may have been some procedural shortcomings the actions of the Complainant amounted to gross misconduct and justified the dismissal. The Respondent submitted that there were on going issues with the Complainant which the Respondent had raised with her.

In evidence, the Respondent stated that prior to the dismissal, the Complainant had not turned up for work, they had issues around her carrying out physical therapy in a personal capacity on the company premises and she was also issuing invoices on the Respondent company paper. The Respondent  stated that the Complainant was not hired to do physical therapy and that she had a disciplinary meeting with the Complainant about this.

Shortly thereafter, the Complainant had failed to turn up for work on a day that she was rostered to open the premises that morning. The Respondent was of the view that this was very unprofessional. On foot of this, the Respondent sent a letter of dismissal to the Complainant advising that her employment had been terminated because she had not opened the gym on her scheduled day of work and that the decision was not reversible. The letter went on to say she would be paid two weeks’ notice and requested that she return her keys and uniform. A further letter was furnished to the Complainant whereby the Respondent outlined more concerns that they had with the Complainant and concluded that these concerns amounted to gross misconduct. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had been advised of her right to appeal the decision.

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the procedure followed may not have been perfect but the failure by the Complainant to turn up for work on the 29th of February 2020 was from the Respondent’s perspective, the last straw.

The Complainant's representative argued that the Complainant was dismissed without any procedure being followed and contrary to the evidence of the Respondent there were no previous disciplinary hearings or warnings, verbal or otherwise. There was no documentary proof that she had ever been invited to any disciplinary process nor was she ever provided with any minutes of such a process.  The Complainant in her sworn evidence to the Court stated that she had advised the Respondent that she could work the odd Saturday but that she could not open up as she had a pre-existing commitment on Saturday mornings.

The Complainant stated that she was never invited to or attended any disciplinary meetings and that she had never been given an appraisal. She stated she only saw the minutes of the meetings that were alleged to have occurred when she made a Freedom of Information request. The Complainant added further that she was not originally rostered to work on the 29th of February 2020 and when this roster changed last minute, she had already a pre—existing commitment made.

It was clear to the Court from the submissions and the evidence given that in coming to the decision to dismiss, the Respondent did not utilise the Company disciplinary procedure or any procedure at all. The Court found that the Respondent’s failure to follow any procedure or to afford the Complainant an opportunity to be heard prior to making the decision to dismiss, deprived the Complainant of a fair procedure.  The Labour Court upheld the decision of the Adjudication Officer and noted that the Complainant's action of not turning up for work in circumstances where her application for leave had not been granted contributed to her own dismissal.  Taking all of the above into consideration, the Court considered it just and equitable in all the circumstances of this case to award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €13,800.

Guidance for Employers

This case clearly demonstrates the importance for Employers to adhere to disciplinary procedures in circumstances where they wish to dismiss an employee, regardless of how serious they believe that an act of misconduct is. Clear communication is crucial, and it is the Employer’s responsibility to ensure that the Employee in question is advised of their right to appeal, their right to attend meetings etc. Failing to comply with fair procedures may result in an unfair dismissal of an employee. Separately, in relation to compensation for an unfair dismissal, the amount of compensation will be reduced in circumstances where the employee has contributed to their own dismissal.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/july/udd2241.html