Background:

The Complainant, employed by the Respondent since October 2004, served as Cargo Compliance Manager at the time of his dismissal in December 2023. His role entailed overseeing compliance with aviation safety and cargo export regulations. His dismissal arose following an Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) inspection, during which compliance failures were identified, leading to a temporary suspension of the Respondent’s operations. Despite subsequent revalidation, an issue emerged when it was discovered that cargo had been dispatched during the unregulated period, contrary to regulatory requirements. The Complainant, unaware of the shipment, escalated the matter to Senior Management, believing communication breakdowns had occurred.

The Complainant was invited to meetings he believed were fact-finding exercises but was later subjected to a disciplinary hearing for alleged gross misconduct, including accusations of misleading the IAA. He asserted that he was not informed of the investigation or its purpose, denied access to key documentation, and was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond. He was dismissed following the hearing and his appeal upheld procedural flaws but maintained the dismissal decision.

The Complainant sought adjudication, arguing unfair dismissal due to procedural shortcomings and a lack of substantial evidence against him. He claimed €24,469.88 in lost earnings and highlighted mitigation efforts, including job applications and upskilling, securing new employment in March 2024. The Complainant maintained that his actions were based on honest beliefs and lacked intent to mislead, emphasising flaws in the Respondent's handling of regulatory compliance.

Two representatives from the Respondent attended the hearing but had no involvement in the investigation or disciplinary process and no knowledge beyond the contents of the dismissal letter, stating unfamiliarity with WRC procedures. The Respondent informed the hearing that the employees who conducted the investigation were no longer employed and unwilling to attend. Additionally, while the disciplinary decision-maker and appeal officer remained employed by the Respondent, no explanation was provided for their absence at the hearing. As a result, no substantive evidence was presented on behalf of the Respondent.

Finding:

The Adjudicating Officer found in favour of the Complainant on two complaints: unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015, and failure to provide terms of employment under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The Complainant alleged that he was dismissed unfairly following a regulatory failure during a revalidation inspection by the Irish Aviation Authority. The Respondent failed to provide procedural fairness during the investigation and disciplinary process, including not informing the Complainant he was under investigation, denying access to investigative findings, and providing no opportunity to defend himself. This rendered the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair.

The Adjudicating Officer awarded €40,000 in compensation, accounting for financial losses, prospective redundancy rights, and efforts to mitigate losses. Separately, the Respondent admitted breaching the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, by failing to provide written terms or changes in employment. Citing the obligation to notify employees of such changes, the Officer awarded €4,443.60, representing four weeks' remuneration. The total award of €44,443.60 to be paid.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should:

• Ensure Clear and Consistent Communication: Inform employees in writing of any changes to their employment terms, as required under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. This includes providing updated contracts or documentation when roles or terms change.
• Follow Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Actions: Notify employees when they are under investigation, outline the scope of the investigation, and provide a fair opportunity to respond to allegations. Ensure compliance with natural justice and fair procedures under S.I. No. 146/2000.
• Provide Access to Relevant Information: Share investigative findings, evidence, or documentation with the employee and allow them to cross-examine witnesses or challenge evidence during disciplinary processes.
• Document Decision-Making and Appeal Processes: Maintain thorough records of investigations, disciplinary hearings, and appeals. Ensure decision-makers and relevant personnel are available to provide evidence during external adjudications.
• Consider Alternatives to Dismissal: Explore mitigating circumstances, such as an employee’s past record or efforts to cooperate and evaluate alternative measures before deciding on dismissal.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/october/adj-00052319.html