The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent in 1997 and joined the Homecare Department in 2012 as a Patient Services Representative where he was employed until the date of his dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct on the 4th of March 2020.

The Complainant appealed his dismissal on the grounds it was too severe an action for the breach of procedure regarding the issue of a medical device to someone other than the patient. The Complainant agreed he made an error of procedure but maintained it was due to a human error and the error did not result in any damage to the Patient involved or the Respondent.

Following the incident, the Complainant received an email from his Line Manager requesting he attend a meeting to investigate the incident. At the Investigation meeting there were 29 questions put to the Complainant. The Complainant's responses were given by way of handwritten notes. The Complainant was not informed that this investigation was serious and could lead to a finding of disciplinary action. On the 18th of February 2020, the Respondent sent a letter to the Complainant inviting him to a disciplinary hearing. The letter stated, 'l can now confirm that the factfinding investigation has been concluded and went on to invite the Complainant to a disciplinary meeting. The final paragraph of this letter stated, “Given the serious allegations which the investigation has highlighted, you are being temporarily assigned to non-patient facing duties pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.”

A letter of dismissal was issued, and the Complainant was summarily dismissed citing 'gross misconduct’ as the reason for the dismissal.

The Respondent believed that the Complainant would have had ample time to check if the device had been properly approved for the patient. The Respondent also submitted that training records and management testimony confirmed that the Complainant did receive general and ongoing training over an extended period of time on all relevant aspects of this device.

Finally, the Respondent believed that the Complainant was afforded all benefits of fair procedure, in line with the company’s policy, and the universal principles of natural justice. Namely, the Complainant was informed in advance as to the nature of the allegation against him; he was afforded the right to representation; he was provided with a number of fair and impartial hearings, at which he was given every opportunity to respond to the allegations against him; all the evidence in its entirety was considered, including the Complainants representations before any decision was made or action taken. In light of all of the above, the Respondent believed that the dismissal of the Complainant was procedurally fair in all respects.

The Adjudication Officer concluded that whilst the Respondent certainly had grounds to consider disciplinary actions in this case, taking the events in their entirety, the adjudication officer affirmed that the Respondent did not have substantial grounds to fairly dismiss the Complainant.

 Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer decided that the appropriate redress in this case was Re-engagement of the Complainant in the Position he previously held.  https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/may/adj-00029366.html