Dismissal justified substantively but procedurally unfair and underpaid.

The Complainant contended that her dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. She argued that the incidents relied upon by the Respondent did not justify dismissal and were either misunderstood or disputed. She maintained that her use of the gym facilities did not warrant a disciplinary investigation and that she had not deliberately breached security protocols. In relation to the incident in February 2025, when two members of the public were briefly locked inside the museum, the Complainant stated that she was working with a colleague and misunderstood his comment regarding who remained on site. She denied leaving a fire door open or a heater plugged in, in March 2025. The Complainant further argued that the Respondent failed to follow fair procedures, as she was not provided with adequate notice of meetings, was not informed of her right to representation, was not given access to evidence, and was denied the opportunity to challenge complaints made against her. She also claimed unpaid wages during suspension and outstanding final pay.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was dismissed for conduct-related reasons arising from repeated failures to comply with essential security protocols. It maintained that the role of a licensed security officer required strict adherence to procedures and that the Complainant demonstrated ongoing performance deficiencies despite additional oversight and reassignment to a less complex site. The Respondent relied on incidents including unauthorised access to a client’s premises and leaving a fire door open with electrical equipment powered on. It argued that these matters posed serious safety and security risks. The Respondent asserted that the Complainant was informed of the purpose of investigation and disciplinary meetings and that the disciplinary process was explained to her. It maintained that dismissal was reasonable in light of her prior warnings and lack of improvement. In respect of wages, the Respondent accepted that payment was due for the suspension period but contended that final wages had been paid in the normal manner.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent had reasonable grounds to consider dismissal, given the nature of the Complainant’s role and the risks associated with the alleged conduct. It was accepted that many employers would have reached a similar substantive decision. However, the Adjudicator concluded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. There was no evidence that the Complainant received written notice of investigation or disciplinary meetings, nor was she clearly informed of her right to representation or her right of appeal. Particular weight was given to the Complainant’s limited English proficiency and the imbalance of authority at the meetings. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent failed to comply with statutory obligations regarding fair procedures. Accordingly, the dismissal was deemed unfair under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Adjudicator also found that the Respondent failed to pay wages during suspension and failed to discharge the burden of proving that final wages were paid. The WRC ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant €4,000 in compensation for loss of earnings, subject to statutory deductions, together with €1,783.57 net for unpaid wages in March 2025 and €543.20 gross for wages during her suspension in February 2025.

Employers should:

• Ensure that disciplinary decisions are supported not only by substantive justification but also by adherence to fair procedures. Even where conduct appears serious and dismissal is likely, failure to follow proper process can render an otherwise reasonable decision unfair. Written notice of allegations, clarity, and disclosure of evidence are safeguards.  
  
• Inform employees of their right to representation and, where language barriers exist, take additional steps to ensure meaningful participation. This may include offering an interpreter or ensuring representation is present. Disciplinary procedures should be provided in writing and consistently applied, particularly where dismissal is a potential outcome. The right of appeal must always be communicated in dismissal correspondence. 
   
  
• Ensure compliance with wage payment obligations during suspension and on termination. Administrative oversights can give rise to separate statutory breaches. 
  

The full case can be found here.