Complaint Not Upheld.

The Complainant worked as a Sales Assistant in the Respondent’s Dublin Airport shop. She stated that in November 2023 she was physically struck by a supervisor, who then falsely accused the Complainant of assaulting her. A manager supported the supervisor, criticised the Complainant, and asked her to sign a statement which she refused as it was untrue. No meaningful action followed, although the supervisor was absent for two months. When the supervisor returned in February 2024, the Complainant alleged a further assault which she reported to Gardaí. She pursued the internal Grievance Procedure and an appeal, which she maintained were completed but ineffective. After submitting medical certification for stress, she was pressured to attend further medical assessments contrary to company policy. Her annual leave was later removed from company records, she was escorted from the premises on several occasions, faced unfounded complaints, and was ultimately dismissed in January 2025, which she believed was punitive.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant commenced employment as a Sales Assistant in April 2022. It relied on three complaints made against her under its Dignity at Work Policy. In Complaint 1, a colleague alleged that the Complainant struck her with a ladder, attempted to hit her with a trolley, made threatening remarks, and spoke negatively about her to colleagues. In Complaint 2, another alleged that the Complainant repeatedly called him a liar, refused to work with him, and intentionally made him uncomfortable. Complaint 3 arose after the Complainant was notified of the investigation in September 2024, when she allegedly behaved aggressively, threatened colleagues, requiring intervention by airport police. The Respondent contended that an investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal were conducted, and that dismissal for gross misconduct in January 2025 was fair and justified.

The Adjudicating Officer applied the three-part test for unfair dismissal. That is grounds to initiate discipline, fairness of procedure, and reasonableness of sanction. He found that the allegations, including alleged assault and serious interpersonal misconduct, gave the respondent reasonable grounds to commence an investigation. Having heard from the investigator, the Adjudicator rejected the Complainant’s claims that he lacked English or independence and considered that the investigation had been conducted to a high standard. The Adjudicator noted credibility concerns in the Complainant’s evidence. While he criticised the Respondent for proceeding with the disciplinary hearing during a period close to certified sick leave and recognised the risk in not delaying by a further week, he concluded that the Complainant had been aware of the rescheduled hearing and had chosen not to attend. Overall, he found that the process was substantially fair and that the dismissal was not unfair.

Employers should:

1. Ensure that complaints of bullying, harassment or assault are taken seriously and promptly investigated under a clear Dignity at Work policy. An investigator who is not directly involved with the parties, and who can demonstrate neutrality, greatly strengthens the employer’s position.
   
2. In disciplinary procedures, ensure written communication be clear, timely and well-documented. Employees should be told in writing what allegations they face, what policies are engaged, and the possible sanctions, including dismissal. Reasonable requests for postponement, particularly where medical certificates are produced, should be accommodated where possible, but employers are entitled to progress matters where there is evidence of obstruction.
   
3. Note, the appeal stage should not be treated as a formality. A different, senior and impartial manager should hear the appeal and consider any alleged procedural defects or new evidence.

The full case can be found here.