This case involved a claim for unfair dismissal. The complainant had been dismissed following a routine examination by the respondent of the clocking system in place for their employees. The routine examination showed irregularities in the way the complainant operated same and the respondent stated that this conduct justified her dismissal. The complainant explained the irregularity by the fact that she had worked very closely with the former hotel owner who had, among other things, allowed her colleagues to clock in for the complainant in the event she was a few minutes late for her 7.30am shift.

The respondent submitted that the complainant's actions and requirements for her colleagues and subordinates to indicate her presence in work amounted to a deliberate and calculated falsification of company records which amounted to gross misconduct. The complainant submitted that the practise had been long standing and the previous owner had sanctioned same, however the respondent could not refute the argument. The HR Manager confirmed in evidence that if the complainant was late for her shift she would ensure that she worked later and fulfilled her contractual obligation.

The Adjudication Officer stated that given the facts the complainant should have been given the benefit of the doubt and the respondent should have investigated the complainant's explanation. The Adjudication Officer found that the respondent was entitled to insist that the complainant's clocking in system cease and desist but felt that in the circumstances her behaviour was not a dismissible offence. Accordingly, the Court felt that dismissal was not warranted and awarded compensation to the complainant.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/September/ADJ-00011298.html