WRC held employee’s dismissal was procedurally flawed, despite the employer having substantial grounds for dismissal.

The Complainant, employed as a night manager for two years, claimed his dismissal in May 2024 was unfair. He argued he was penalised for raising health and safety concerns and for making a protected disclosure under the 2014 Act. In October 2023, he complained about being spoken to aggressively by the operations manager (OM), but his concerns were dismissed by the general manager (GM). In December, he said he was ambushed by the night team leader (TL), prompting him to leave his shift early. A written warning followed, which he challenged, alongside a request for a transfer that he claimed was ignored. The Complainant alleged that accusations of homophobia were a retaliatory measure for raising workplace complaints. While his grievance was pending, he was called to a disciplinary hearing. He argued this process was unfair as his complaints had not been properly investigated. During a May 2024 grievance meeting, he claimed he was told to “just get on with it.” He later emailed to appeal his dismissal but received no further response.

The Respondent said tensions arose after management changed in late 2023. Following the Complainant’s early departure from a shift, he received a written warning. In early 2024, a colleague accused him of homophobic and mocking remarks. The Complainant responded with a grievance about bullying by TL. Both matters were investigated; several staff were interviewed, and the allegations against him were upheld. At a disciplinary hearing, the Complainant said he had secured a new job. During the grievance process, he suggested compensation as a resolution. He was ultimately dismissed for bullying and harassment. The Respondent maintained the dismissal followed a fair process and that the Complainant failed to properly pursue his appeal.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the dismissal was procedurally flawed, despite the employer having substantial grounds for dismissal. While the Respondent followed a fair investigation and disciplinary process, it failed to respond to the Complainant’s timely appeal request after the general manager had left the company. This amounted to a breach of fair procedures, rendering the dismissal unfair under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. However, the Complainant was found to have contributed significantly to the breakdown in workplace relations through offensive conduct, which included harassment of a colleague. Consequently, compensation was limited to €3,000. Regarding the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the Adjudicator held the complaint was out of time and that no genuine health and safety complaint had been made. Under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the Adjudicator determined the Complainant’s grievances did not amount to protected disclosures and that he was not penalised for making one. Both related complaints were found not well founded.

Employers should:

• Ensure disciplinary procedures are not only fair but fully completed. Where an appeal is offered, systems must be in place to receive and act on it, even if key personnel leave the business. Failure to respond undermines the fairness of the process.
   
  
• Clearly differentiate between protected disclosures and interpersonal grievances. Only disclosures relating to specified wrongdoings under the 2014 Act will trigger legal protection. Training in this area can help HR teams assess complaints correctly.
   
  
• Investigate all allegations of misconduct, including those involving discrimination or harassment. Employers must give the employee a fair chance to respond and maintain clear records of each step taken to demonstrate procedural compliance.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/april/adj-00054155.html