Complainant: Gerard Carey

Respondent:  DAA Plc Dublin Airport Authority Plc

WRC held employer followed a full and fair disciplinary and appeal process following dismissal of employee for theft.

The Complainant alleged unfair dismissal as an Airside Operations Manager following an appeal hearing in October 2023. The Complainant had been employed since March 1998 and was promoted to his final position in August 2008, earning €65,143 per annum for a 36-hour workweek. They argued their dismissal followed an unfair and prejudicial investigative process after his arrest for alleged theft in June 2023. He contended that the Respondent failed to consider his deteriorating mental health, which was supported by medical evidence linking his actions to personal and family crises. Employer-provided assistance was described as inadequate, with stigma attached to seeking support. The appeal hearing, held by a Senior Manager in October 2024 was characterised as a mere endorsement of the earlier dismissal decision. The Complainant claimed natural justice was ignored, citing Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd on proportionality. Additionally, he sought statutory minimum notice, as none was provided due to dismissal for gross misconduct.

The Respondent presented extensive oral testimony supported by a detailed written submission. The fundamental facts were undisputed; i.e., the Complainant had been arrested for theft from retailers in the airport complex. A comprehensive investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal were conducted, during which the Complainant was fully represented by SIPTU. The Respondent maintained that all procedures followed were in strict compliance with SI 146 of 2000 and agreed employment policies. The core issue was a breach of trust, particularly critical in an airside safety and regulatory environment. The deciding manager stated that, despite careful consideration, no viable alternative to dismissal existed. The Appeal Officer upheld the decision, emphasising the loss of confidence in the Complainant. Medical evidence was considered but did not outweigh the breach of trust. The Respondent cited extensive case law to support their position, including Mullane v Honeywell Aerospace and O’Callaghan v Dunnes Stores. It was further argued that the Adjudicator’s role was not to re-run the case but to ensure fair procedures. Regarding minimum notice, the Respondent contended that none was payable due to dismissal for gross misconduct under s.8 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973.

The Adjudicator considered two key questions: whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, whether the sanction was proportionate. It was found that the Respondent had followed a full and fair disciplinary and appeal process in strict compliance with SI 146 of 2000. The principles of natural justice, as outlined in Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd [1997] IEHC 137, were observed. They determined that it was not its role to substitute its decision for that of the employer but rather to assess the reasonableness of the process. Citing Foley v Post Office [2000] ICR 1283 and Doyle v Asilo Commercial Limited [2008] IEHC 445, the Adjudicator concluded that the decision to dismiss was reasonable, given the breach of trust in an aviation safety role. The complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 was dismissed. Consequently, the claim for minimum notice under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 also failed.

Employers should:

1. Employers must follow established disciplinary procedures, as outlined in SI 146 of 2000, ensuring procedural fairness. This includes conducting a comprehensive investigation, allowing the employee to respond, and providing a clear rationale for dismissal. Proper documentation of each step is essential.
2. While breaches of trust, especially in safety-sensitive roles, may justify dismissal, employers should assess whether lesser sanctions, such as demotion or reassignment, are feasible. The principle of proportionality, as highlighted in Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd [1997] IEHC 137, should always be considered.
3. Appeal decisions should be made by an independent senior manager who reviews the case afresh. The decision-maker must not merely “rubber-stamp” prior conclusions but rather provide a genuine reconsideration of all factors, including mitigating circumstances such as medical evidence.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/january/adj-00048839.html