The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a teacher and also held a post as ICT Co-ordinator until his dismissal in February 2020. The Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC that he was unfairly dismissed.

The Complainant’s dismissal arose following a disciplinary process initiated against the Complainant following an investigation into complaints that were made by the Complainant. The Principal formed the view that the complainant was motivated by malice in making the complaint against the one individual and also in naming three other people in subsequent correspondence and compiled a report for the board of management and initiated stage 4 of the disciplinary procedures.  The board of management found that the complainant was guilty of gross misconduct and notified the complainant by letter in June 2019 that he was to be dismissed from his position within the school. The Respondent outlined that the Complainant availed of his ability to appeal his dismissal to the Teacher’s Disciplinary Appeal Panel which was unsuccessful, and the Complainant was dismissed on the expiry of three months’ notice in February 2020.

The Respondent contended that the dismissal of the complainant was not unfair. The Respondent contended that the Complainant was dismissed following a thorough investigation process that was held in compliance with the provisions of the statutory disciplinary procedures as set out in the Department of Education and Skills Circular Letter 49/2018.

The Complainant’s representative outlined a number of failings on the part of the Respondent throughout the process. Specifically, the Complainant contended he was not provided with contracts of employment in relation to his employment or his appointment to the post of responsibility. The Complainant also asserted that he was not provided with the policy in relation to the investigation of complaints against teachers.  The Complainant also submitted that the principal did not inform him that he was conducting an investigation as opposed to simply seeking clarification on the issues raised or that there could be serious consequences for the Complainant as a result.  The Complainant further asserted that he was not informed of his right not to partake in the principal’s investigation or that he could withdraw the issues he raised and/or cease in the role of ICT Co-ordinator.

The Complainant contended that the Respondent did not consider invoking any other stages of the disciplinary process or alternative sanctions and had not informed the complainant his investigation had concluded and had found that the complainant was guilty of gross misconduct.

In consideration of the above, The Adjudication Officer was of the opinion that the Complainant was denied fair procedures and natural justice when the complaints he made, were found to be unsubstantiated and essentially, he was disciplined, found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed as a result. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant the sum of €20,000.00 in compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Guidance for Employers

The WRC ruled that although the Respondent had not adhered to fair procedures and the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed, the Complainant had not made sufficient attempts to mitigate his losses. It was the view of the Adjudication Officer that the Complainant should have applied for jobs outside the field of working in in his profession. The WRC also highlighted that the investigation process invoked by the Respondent should not have been expedited to ‘stage 4’ as this did not give the Complainant a proper opportunity to defend himself against the allegations, and a lesser stage of the disciplinary process would have sufficed.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/may/adj-00027798.html