Dismissal for falsifying work records was substantively justified but procedurally unfair due to flaws in the disciplinary process, resulting in €1,330 compensation.

The Complainant argued that his dismissal for gross misconduct had been unfair and disproportionate. He had worked for the Respondent and its predecessor company as a maintenance operative on a third-party retail contract and had maintained an exemplary employment record prior to the events in August 2024. He accepted that he had not cleaned a refrigeration display case on the relevant date because the unit had not been stripped out for maintenance, but he maintained that the inspection was not food safety critical and could have been completed later. He admitted placing a revised inspection sticker on the unit and marking the task complete, explaining that he intended for a colleague to carry out the work later. He further contended that he did not carry out roof maintenance due to genuine health and safety concerns about working alone in wet conditions without proper safety equipment. He argued that the disciplinary process was flawed and that dismissal was an excessive sanction.

The Respondent maintained that the dismissal was justified because the Complainant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a serious breach of trust. The Respondent had received complaints from a third-party client regarding the Complainant’s conduct at a store in August 2024, including falsifying cleaning records, excessive phone use, leaving the premises during work hours, and failing to complete scheduled maintenance tasks. The Respondent investigated the allegations and sought explanations from the Complainant, but management considered his responses evasive and lacking remorse. A disciplinary hearing took place in October 2024, during which the Complainant attended with union representation. The Respondent concluded that the Complainant had falsely recorded work as completed when it had not been done and that this undermined the trust required for remote unsupervised work. The Respondent considered the Complainant’s explanations unsatisfactory and dismissed him with immediate effect in late October 2024. That decision was later upheld on appeal.

The Adjudicating found that there were substantial grounds for disciplinary action because the Complainant had recorded refrigeration case cleaning as completed when it had not been carried out. The Respondent was entitled to regard this as a serious matter given the trust required in the Complainant’s role. However, the Adjudicator also found significant procedural deficiencies in the disciplinary process. The manager who investigated the allegations had formed negative views about the Complainant’s explanations before conducting the disciplinary hearing and subsequently participated in the decision to dismiss, thereby undermining the impartiality of the process. The Adjudicator also found inconsistencies in the Respondent’s evidence concerning the influence of the third-party client’s views on the dismissal decision. Importantly, the Complainant had not been clearly informed during the disciplinary process that dismissal for gross misconduct was being contemplated. Although the Complainant contributed significantly to his dismissal through his conduct, the summary dismissal was deemed procedurally unfair and compensation of €1,330 was awarded.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that investigations and disciplinary hearings are conducted separately. An investigator who forms conclusions about an employee’s credibility or culpability should not ordinarily make the final disciplinary decision. Maintaining clear procedural separation helps preserve impartiality and reduces the risk of findings of procedural unfairness before the WRC or courts. 
  
  
• Ensure that employees are expressly informed of the seriousness of allegations and the potential consequences, including dismissal where applicable. Employees should receive copies of the relevant disciplinary procedures before any hearing.  
  
  
• Follow fair procedures, consider mitigating factors, and ensure consistency in decision-making.

The full case can be found here.