This case demonstrates the importance of the employer following fair dismissal procedures which other reasonable employers would also have followed.

The claimant was a stock control manager prior to his dismissal. The claimant had originally begun working for the respondent in the UK counterpart before moving to take up a role in Ireland. It transpired shortly after his move to Ireland that the claimant was continuing to be paid by the UK hub store in addition to the wages he was receiving from the Irish company. This mistake was made by the UK hub store - they assumed that the claimant was with the Irish company on a secondment basis.

The respondent conducted an investigation surrounding this issue. Upon investigation, the claimant said he was shocked at the fact of the double payment; he claimed that his wife was in control of the finances and therefore he was unaware of the double payment. Upon consultation with his wife it transpired that she had been aware of the double payment but had spent the money. The claimant was under financial strain but offered to repay the respondent the money that was owed.

Following the investigation the claimant was suspended on full pay for what the company claimed was a breach of trust policy. It was on the basis of this policy that the claimant was dismissed; the respondent did not view the claimant's explanation of his wife's role in the finances as credible.

The EAT took note of the opinion of the appeal's officer who had noted that the process of the claimant's dismissal and disciplinary was "not perfect".

The claimant's wife admitted her part in keeping the extra payment which had been made to her husband. She noted in evidence how she decided to keep her knowledge to herself until her actions were noticed. The EAT noted how she had offered to contact the police to report her actions.

Throughout evidence the claimant maintained that he was unaware of the double payment until he was informed by his wife after the meeting with his manager. The claimant argued that prior to that meeting it was not pointed out to him the seriousness of the meeting nor was it regarded as a disciplinary meeting. The claimant also criticised the delay in the appeal process, with the appeal taking place in January and the outcome of the appeal not being provided until after the respondent was contacted by the claimant's solicitor in March.

The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, noting that the respondent had failed to show the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances - the final few paragraphs of this decision highlight relevant Irish case law in this area. The tribunal found that the procedures that were followed by the respondent were inadequate considering the severity of the claims against the claimant. It also criticised the role of some personnel who appear to have been involved in both the investigation and in the disciplinary process itself.

The tribunal further noted the failure of the respondent to take into account the claimant's previously unblemished record whilst in employment and further their failure to notify the claimant of his suspension or the fact that the meetings he attended where of a disciplinary nature. The Tribunal awarded the complainant €70, 000 in compensation.
http://bit.ly/1qa8dAe