WRC found dismissal unfair due to disproportionate response and lack of fair procedures.

The Complainant had been employed by the Respondent as a driver since February 2015 and was summarily dismissed in July 2023 following a paid suspension that began in April 2023. His complaint centred on alleged procedural failings throughout the investigation and disciplinary process. He contended that the investigation began with an anonymous witness statement, which was later withdrawn, but the process continued despite this. He stated he never received written notice of his suspension, was denied the opportunity to challenge witnesses, and was not afforded fair procedures in accordance with S.I. No. 146/2000. Witness statements were disclosed to him at the end of May 2023, but he claimed he was not given a fair chance to respond. He was ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct without notice pay and his appeal was unsuccessful. The Complainant asserted that the process was procedurally flawed, he suffered financial loss (of €20,875) and he sought reinstatement.

The Respondent asserted that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following multiple breaches of company policy. The misconduct included unauthorised vehicle use, home stops during work hours, failure to complete logbook checks, and falsification of documents. A formal investigation was launched after initial concerns arose in March 2023, revealing further infractions. Meetings were held throughout April to June 2023, during which the Complainant was represented by his trade union. The Respondent claimed that proper procedures were followed, including issuing a suspension letter and disclosing evidence. Although the Complainant was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, he was allowed to respond to their statements. The Respondent argued that allowing confrontation of witnesses is not company policy and cited legal precedent to justify its stance. It maintained that the anonymous complaint was disregarded, and the dismissal decision was based solely on substantiated misconduct. The Complainant's appeal was heard and rejected in August 2023. The Respondent emphasised that it had no alternative due to the loss of trust and further argued the Complainant failed to mitigate his losses and denied any entitlement to notice pay under the Payment of Wages Act.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, despite serious breaches of company policy. While the Respondent followed much of the proper procedure, including providing notice of suspension and offering the Complainant the chance to respond to allegations, the failure to consider lesser disciplinary sanctions rendered the dismissal unreasonable. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the anonymous witness statement had no bearing on the dismissal and found the suspension appropriate due to ongoing misconduct. However, the Complainant’s inability to cross-examine witnesses did not nullify his right to a fair hearing, as he had opportunities to respond. Reinstatement was rejected due to a total breakdown of trust. The Complainant’s failure to mitigate loss, coupled with limited evidence of financial impact, led to a modest compensation award. Ultimately, €3,256.80 was granted which comprised of four weeks’ pay and an additional €1,000 (deemed just and equitable in all circumstances).

Employers should:

1. Always Consider Proportionality: Even where misconduct is proven, dismissal must be a last resort. Reasonable alternatives (such as final warnings) should be properly assessed and documented before termination.
2. Maintain Fair Procedures: Ensure all stages of investigation and disciplinary actions follow written policy and give the employee every opportunity to respond. A fair chance to reply to allegations is essential.
3. Document Everything and Communicate Clearly: Suspension letters, meeting minutes, and notices of decisions must be shared with the employee and properly recorded. Where anonymous complaints arise, confirm early that they are not relied upon or form part of final decisions to avoid future procedural challenges.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/may/adj-00048560.html