Employee’s dismissal for gross misconduct was upheld as fair following a reasonable disciplinary process despite minor procedural flaws.

The Complainant, a van driver employed since 2014 under a Wage Subsidy Scheme, was dismissed for gross-misconduct in February 2024. He alleged that his dismissal was procedurally flawed, discriminatory, and disproportionate, particularly in light of his disabilities (including severe dyslexia and illiteracy). He claimed the disciplinary process failed to accommodate these disabilities and relied on contradictory witness accounts of incidents involving a colleague. The Complainant contended he was unaware of an earlier complaint until the later altercation, and that management failed to follow their grievance policy by not seeking informal resolution. He denied any assault, argued the employer ignored mitigating factors, and criticised their refusal to examine CCTV footage, despite using such evidence in past investigations. He further alleged religious discrimination and that statements had been misrepresented. His representative asserted the dismissal process was biased and unfair.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following two workplace incidents involving a colleague. A formal complaint was made in January 2024. Both employees were suspended with pay while an internal investigation was conducted by the Respondent’s Manager. The investigation found the Complainant behaved aggressively in mid-December, ignored multiple warnings to stop, and more. The Gardai were called due to the severity of the situation. The disciplinary hearing was held, and the Complainant was advised he could be dismissed. He apologised and referenced anger management issues, but the Disciplinary Manager found the dismissal appropriate. The Complainant appealed, claiming bias, and argued prior incidents weren’t properly addressed. The CEO reviewed all documents and witness accounts and upheld the dismissal, emphasising the need to maintain workplace safety. The Respondent also offered six weeks’ pay and counselling support. Witnesses from the Respondent denied any procedural unfairness and confirmed that the Complainant was represented and that documents were explained. The Respondent relied on s.6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, maintaining the dismissal was fair given the gravity of misconduct.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. It was determined that the Respondent had established substantial grounds justifying the dismissal, and that the process followed was fair and reasonable. The Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following an altercation in December 2023, which involved verbal and physical aggression and led to Garda intervention. The investigation involved multiple witnesses, and the Complainant was given full opportunity to respond to allegations, attend disciplinary hearings, and appeal the decision. The Adjudicator found that although some minor procedural inconsistencies were identified, they did not affect the overall fairness of the process. The Complainant’s claim of religious discrimination was introduced only at the hearing and lacked credibility. The CCTV footage central to the Complainant’s defence was unavailable and there was no policy permitting its use. On balance, the Respondent’s actions were found to fall within the band of reasonableness, and the dismissal was deemed fair and proportionate.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that disciplinary policies, including the use of CCTV footage, are clearly documented, GDPR-compliant, and communicated to all staff. Regularly review and update the employee handbook and require staff to acknowledge receipt of any updates.
   
  
• Follow fair disciplinary processes, including giving the employee notice of allegations, the right to representation, and a chance to respond. Maintain objectivity, document all stages, and keep investigations and disciplinary processes clearly separated.
   
  
• Before dismissal, especially for gross misconduct, assess if the sanction is proportionate to the behaviour in question. Consider mitigating factors such as length of service and prior conduct and ensure the decision falls within the “band of reasonableness” expected of employers.

The full case can be found here.