Background:

The background to this dispute related to a period when the school principal was on extended leave. When the school principal returned there were two categories of payments made to the Complainant that appeared to be unauthorised. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not entitled to these payments and the payments were not sanctioned by the Board of Management.

The Complainant, who was employed as a secretary believed she was authorised by the assistant principal to process these payments. The Complainant managed the payroll for staff who were paid by the school which was separate to the teaching payroll system. The Complainant submitted this system was an informal process and approval for payments was generally orally communicated.

The Complainant submitted the process followed by the school that led to the Complainant being dismissed was fundamentally flawed. The Complainant contended the school principal's report was not an independent fact find and it was hugely prejudicial to the Complainant’s defence. The Board of Management acted on a prejudiced report and any decision that followed on from that report had to be flawed.

The Respondent submitted the Complainant had given herself unauthorised pay increases for the period January to June 2019 and overpayment of holiday pay amounting to an additional 2 weeks’ pay.

In an investigation of the matter, the school principal concluded the increases could not have happened by accident and they amounted to misappropriation of school funds. The principal’s detailed report was sent to the Board and to the Complainant. The principal suggested that the matter required investigation and had not made any definitive finding.

The Board of Management advised the Complainant a disciplinary investigation would be conducted and that pending the conclusion of the investigation she would be suspended with pay.

The disciplinary hearing took place on 27th November 2019. The Complainant presented a written submission to the Board. The Respondent submitted the Complainant was given the opportunity to challenge any evidence being relied upon. The principal did not participate in the Board’s disciplinary investigation and decision. The Board concluded the allegations of unauthorised payments had in fact occurred and this amounted to a breach of trust and confidence and constituted gross and serious misconduct. Having reached this conclusion, the appropriate sanction was dismissal with immediate effect. The Complainant was afforded the right to appeal. The appeal was an external independent professional. Ultimately, the appeal was not upheld.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer found the initial fact find report by the school principal was flawed and was highly prejudicial to the Complainant. There was no fair statement of the Complainant’s explanation that the acting principal allegedly authorised the payment. The account was therefore very one-sided and could not be viewed as an independent and objective account. The Adjudication Officer submitted that the report leaned towards a definitive view of what happened and that it amounted to theft.

The Adjudication Officer concluded that the overall process was flawed, and the Complainant was denied fair procedures. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant the sum of €25,000 compensation arising from being unfairly dismissed.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers will be regarded as having fairly dismissed an employee only if it both gave the employee the full benefits of a fair procedure and accorded them an established functional necessity for their dismissal. The WRC will scrutinise an employer’s conduct very closely where the employer is faced with a problem requiring investigation. Case law demonstrates that it is not a question of whether ex-employees are deprived of procedures to which they were entitled, but rather whether the denial of such procedures is such that the defendant employer must be deemed to have failed to establish the basis of their dismissal as the whole or the main reason for and justifying their dismissal.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/february/adj-00028138.html