WRC partially upheld employee’s complaint and awarded €10,080 after dismissal was found procedurally unfair and employer failed to provide written terms of employment.

The Complainant was dismissed by the Respondent in October 2023 following several allegations. She subsequently filed multiple complaints to the WRC, citing breaches of her employment rights, including lack of formal terms and conditions, excessive working hours without proper rest breaks, and unfair dismissal. The Complainant claimed she was never issued a formal contract of employment, despite repeated requests, and her duties had significantly expanded over time without written acknowledgment or additional support. She described a demanding workload, especially after transferring to a client site in 2010, and outlined a positive work history, with no previous disciplinary issues or complaints against her. The dismissal stemmed from several allegations including falsifying training records and inappropriate conduct. The Complainant denied all charges, arguing the investigation was flawed, biased, and failed to include key witness statements from client site staff. She maintained that she was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself and characterised the process as a coordinated effort to discredit her. Despite appealing the dismissal, the decision was upheld.

The Respondent asserted that the disciplinary process was fair, lawful, and unrelated to any personal circumstances. It maintained that the Complainant, a manager since 2008, had been dismissed for cause following serious allegations, including falsification of a training record. Testimony from an employee claimed their signature was forged on training documents and described a deteriorating relationship with the Complainant. HR conducted the investigation and stated the concerns raised were credible. They found issues with training documentation and collected reports of inappropriate behaviour and language by the Complainant. No complaints were received from client site staff, and no handwriting expert was engaged. The Respondent argued that the Complainant’s dismissal was based on valid concerns, supported by witness accounts and internal documentation. It denied any conspiracy or procedural unfairness, asserting that the Complainant had been afforded full procedural rights, including representation and appeal.

The Adjudicating Officer found that out of eight complaints submitted by the Complainant, two were upheld. The most significant finding was that the Complainant’s dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the Respondent’s failure to provide her with a fair opportunity to challenge key evidence during the disciplinary process. Although the dismissal was found to be substantively justified, the procedural flaws rendered it unfair, and the Complainant was awarded €5,580 in compensation. Additionally, the Respondent was found to be in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 for failing to provide a written statement of the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment, resulting in a further award of €4,500. The remaining complaints were either withdrawn or found not to be well-founded, including those relating to working time, changes to terms, carer’s leave, and alleged breaches under equality legislation. In total, the Complainant was awarded €10,080 in compensation.

Employers should:

• Ensure Written Terms Are Provided: Employers must issue a written statement of employment terms to all staff, as required by the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. Relying solely on offer letters is insufficient.  
  
  
• Conduct Fair and Transparent Disciplinary Processes: Where dismissal is considered, employers must ensure procedural fairness, including allowing the employee to respond fully, challenge evidence, and access relevant documents. Even if misconduct is proven, flawed procedures can render a dismissal unfair.
   
  
• Document and Communicate Employment Changes: Any significant changes to an employee’s duties, work location, or responsibilities should be confirmed in writing. Keeping clear, dated records protects the employer.                      
  

The full case can be found here.