WRC held in favour of employee and found he was unfairly dismissed due to the employer's serious procedural failures, absence of written warnings, and denial of representation rights.

The Complainant stated that his work performance had been good with no prior issues. A few months after becoming full-time, he noticed his manager reassigning colleagues’ tasks to him. He admitted to occasional lateness and some sick leave but disputed management’s claim of sixteen days’ absence. He recalled informal meetings but received no formal warnings. At a meeting in September 2024, he was unexpectedly handed a document recording absences and signed it under duress, fearing dismissal. He never received a copy. He denied seeing any warning letter mentioned by the Respondent. He later secured alternative employment.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant’s employment had been terminated (shifting the burden of proof to them). They stated the Complainant started as a part-time service desk engineer, became full-time in October 2023, and remained employed until his dismissal. Attendance and punctuality issues arose, with the Complainant accruing around sixteen days of absence. These concerns were first raised at a meeting in September 2024, though this was confirmed not to be a disciplinary hearing. A second meeting followed and a final meeting in January 2025, at which point the Complainant was issued a termination letter.

The Adjudicating Officer found the handling of the case and dismissal process to be deeply flawed and procedurally unfair. The Respondent showed casual indifference, failed to submit written evidence, and did not produce witnesses relevant to the dismissal. There was confusion over key meeting dates, with no record provided. The Complainant was not given proper written notice, representation rights, or copies of any alleged warnings. An October meeting, where the Respondent claimed a warning was issued, was poorly documented and lacked procedural fairness. The January dismissal meeting was equally flawed, relying on the disputed prior warning and again breaching fair procedures. The Complainant received no proper opportunity to respond. The Adjudicator concluded the dismissal was wholly unfair, criticised the Respondent’s conduct as wrong, and awarded the complainant €2,700 in compensation for five weeks lost earnings.

1. This case highlights the necessity for employers to follow fair procedures when addressing employee conduct, attendance, or performance issues. Any disciplinary process must begin with clear, written notice outlining the nature and purpose of the meeting, the specific concerns being raised, and any possible outcomes, including potential dismissal.
    
   
2. Employers must also inform employees of their right to representation at disciplinary meetings. This includes the right to bring a colleague or trade union representative. Additionally, any warnings issued must be given in writing, with a copy provided to the employee and kept on file for future reference.
    
   
3. Finally, poor record-keeping and informal handling of disciplinary matters leave employers vulnerable to legal claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Even where there are legitimate concerns, failure to observe procedural fairness can result in compensation awards against the employer. Proper documentation, clear communication, and adherence to established disciplinary procedures are essential safeguards.

The full case can be found here.