Complainant receives €2,000 in compensation in unfair dismissal claim
Background
The complainant worked as a truck driver for a concrete company. The complainant started work at 5:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 28, 2023. He collected a flatbed truck and drove to Dublin. Prior to his return to the depot, his line manager requested he work extra hours to deliver concrete to Tallaght. However, the customer only needed a third of the load. The complainant returned to the depot with the excess concrete, arriving at approximately 8:30 p.m.
The Complainant was dismissed after returning a flatbed truck inoperable due to hardened concrete left overnight. After a 15-hour shift, he chose to clean the truck the next day, despite his manager’s instructions to clean it upon return. This delay rendered the truck unusable for two days. A senior manager decided to terminate his employment without providing an appeal, written notice, or due process. The dismissal followed prior warnings in 2023 for unrelated road safety issues.
The Complainant, representing himself, claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that his employer terminated him without written notice, a chance to defend himself, or an option to appeal. The Respondent, represented by its Managing Director as the sole witness, asserted the dismissal was justified.
Complainants view
The Complainant represented himself and affirmed to tell the truth at the outset. He relied on his submission in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form and provided no additional documentary evidence. The Respondent’s representative appropriately challenged the Complainant’s evidence. The Complainant attended in person, unable to secure a connection for remote participation. He alleged unfair dismissal, emphasizing that the Employer summarily dismissed him without written notification, an opportunity to defend himself, or a right to appeal.
The Adjudicator explained the adjudication process, including the burden of proof and its allocation, where necessary. Inquiries were also made to clarify the facts and fulfil statutory responsibilities.
Respondents view
The Respondent was represented at the hearing by its Managing Director who was the sole witness providing evidence on its behalf. No objections were raised regarding the documentary evidence presented by the Respondent during its case. All evidence was given under affirmation, and the Respondent’s witness was questioned by the Complainant. The Respondent maintained its decision to dismiss the Complainant, citing the circumstances leading to the termination. Where necessary, the Adjudicator conducted inquiries to clarify the facts and fulfil statutory duties.
Findings and conclusion
The Complainant represented himself, affirming to tell the truth and relying on his Workplace Relations Complaint Form submission. No additional documentary evidence was provided. The Respondent’s evidence, presented by Managing Director NC, was not disputed.
The dismissal itself was not contested, leaving the burden on the Respondent to prove it was fair and reasonable. The Complainant, a driver, had received prior warnings in 2023 for speeding and road safety issues, highlighting the importance of safety in his role.
The incident leading to dismissal occurred on September 28, 2023. After a 15-hour day involving a concrete delivery, the Complainant returned to the depot at 8:30 p.m., leaving excess concrete in the truck’s flatbed. He admitted ignoring instructions to clean it immediately, intending to do so the next day due to exhaustion. Overnight, the concrete hardened, rendering the truck unusable for two days and requiring extensive labour to remove.
The next morning, the Complainant’s manager, informed him that senior management was unhappy. The Managing Director expressed dissatisfaction in a group message. Despite the Complainant offering to clean the truck that evening, a subsequent manager, decided to terminate his employment. This decision was supported by further management conveying the decision was final with no appeal or written notice provided. The Complainant received his wages and leave entitlements.
The managing director testified that he was not directly involved in the termination but supported the decision, considering the Complainant’s actions the “last straw” after previous warnings. He acknowledged procedural failings, including the absence of an appeal process or written termination notice. He admitted that an appeal might have changed the outcome.
The adjudicator found the dismissal procedurally flawed, with no due process or direct communication between the decision-maker and the Complainant. However, the Complainant was aware his actions risked serious consequences. While the dismissal lacked fairness, its impact was reduced as the Complainant quickly secured another job, limiting his financial loss to 4-5 weeks.
Decision
Under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977–2015, the Adjudicator was required to decide on the unfair dismissal claim and grant redress in accordance with Section 7 of the 1977 Act.
In complaint CA-00061166-001, the Complainant alleged unfair dismissal. The Adjudicator found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair and assessed compensation at €2,000.00 for the reasons outlined.
Our Commentary
Follow Fair Dismissal Procedures: Employers should ensure that all dismissals are procedurally fair. This includes providing written notification of the decision, a clear explanation of the reasons for dismissal, and an opportunity for the employee to respond. Additionally, an appeal process must be made available. Failure to adhere to these steps can result in findings of unfair dismissal, even when the underlying reasons for the dismissal are valid.
Maintain Clear Records: Detailed and up-to-date records of all disciplinary actions should be maintained. These records should include the reasons for the actions, relevant dates, and any communications with the employee. Proper documentation is essential for justifying decisions in the event of disputes or hearings.
Train Managers: Employers should ensure that managers receive training in employment law and disciplinary procedures. Such training helps managers understand their obligations and minimizes procedural errors, such as neglecting to offer an appeal or failing to follow up on verbal instructions.
Consider Mitigating Circumstances: Employers must evaluate the context surrounding an employee’s actions before deciding on dismissal. Factors such as long working hours and fatigue, as in the case of the Complainant, may serve as mitigating circumstances. Considering such factors could lead to alternative disciplinary measures instead of termination.
Implement Clear Policies and Communicate Expectations: Employers should establish well-documented disciplinary policies and ensure they are communicated to all staff. This sets clear expectations regarding employee responsibilities and the potential consequences of failing to meet them, thereby reducing the likelihood of misunderstandings.
Consult HR or Legal Experts: Before making a dismissal decision, employers are advised to seek guidance from HR or legal professionals. Consulting experts ensures compliance with employment law and minimizes the risk of procedural errors or financial penalties. Sound advice can help safeguard against claims and ensure that all actions are defensible.
€44,000 in compensation paid to complainant over unfair dismissal
Background
The Complainant, employed as a Cargo Compliance Manager since 2004, was dismissed in December 2023 following compliance failures identified during an Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) inspection. Although operations resumed, cargo was shipped during the suspension, violating regulations. Unaware of this, the Complainant reported the issue to Senior Management.
Believing he was attending fact-finding meetings, the Complainant was subjected to a disciplinary hearing for alleged gross misconduct, including claims of misleading the IAA. He argued he was denied access to key documents, not informed of the investigation’s purpose, and not given a fair chance to respond. Despite acknowledging procedural flaws, his dismissal was upheld on appeal.
The Complainant sought adjudication for unfair dismissal, citing procedural issues and lack of evidence. He claimed €24,469.88 in lost earnings and detailed efforts to mitigate losses, securing a new job in March 2024. At the hearing, the Respondent failed to present substantial evidence, as key individuals involved in the investigation and disciplinary process were absent without explanation.
Summary of Complainant’s case
The Complainant testified under oath about his employment with the Respondent, starting in October 2004. In 2018, he was promoted to Cargo Compliance Manager for Dublin operations but did not receive a contract or terms for this role. He filed a complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, and also challenged his dismissal as unfair.
As Cargo Compliance Manager, the Complainant was responsible for ensuring safety and export compliance for cargo shipments. After the General Manager resigned, he was encouraged to apply for the Cargo Security Manager role, requiring Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) approval.
On October 3, 2023, the Respondent underwent a regulatory IAA inspection, required every five years. Issues with employee security clearances were discovered, leading to the Respondent’s temporary suspension. Senior Management decided to halt cargo operations at midnight on October 4. The Complainant stated he had no role in communicating this decision.
The IAA conducted a revalidation inspection on October 6, confirming compliance and reinstating the Respondent’s operations. However, on October 9, the Complainant discovered that cargo had been dispatched during the unvalidated period. He escalated this to Senior Management, who instructed him not to respond to the IAA inquiry.
The Complainant attended meetings on October 11, 18, and 19, believing they were fact-finding discussions about the failed inspection. He was later informed he should have known about the shipments and was accused of misleading the IAA. He denied this, explaining that scanning logs did not show flight details, and he had no role in the shipping process.
On December 4, 2023, the Complainant attended a disciplinary meeting, unaware he was under investigation. He was accused of gross misconduct and dismissed. His appeal noted procedural flaws, including failure to inform him he was under investigation, but the dismissal was upheld.
The Complainant argued his dismissal was unfair, citing lack of transparency and procedural failings. He sought €24,469.88 for lost earnings, explaining his mitigation efforts, including securing new employment in March 2024. He maintained his actions were based on honest beliefs and emphasized flaws in the Respondent’s processes.
Summary of Respondents case
Two representatives from the Respondent attended the hearing. Neither had been involved in the investigation or disciplinary process and only had knowledge of the case based on the dismissal letter issued to the Complainant. As a result, no evidence was presented on behalf of the Respondent. Mrs. Kelly Porter, one of the representatives, stated that she was newly appointed, had relocated from the UK, and was unfamiliar with WRC procedures.
The Respondent’s representatives explained that the employees who conducted the investigation were no longer employed by the Respondent and were unwilling to attend the hearing. They also confirmed that the disciplinary decision-maker and the appeal officer were still employed by the Respondent but provided no explanation for their absence.
Findings and conclusion
Summary
Case 1: CA-00063963-002
This complaint, under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, alleged that the employer failed to provide the Complainant with a contract of employment or terms and conditions of the role. The Respondent conceded to this claim.
- Finding: The Adjudicator found the complaint well-founded as the Respondent failed to comply with legal obligations to provide a written statement of terms.
- Order: The Respondent must pay €4,443.60 in compensation (equivalent to four weeks’ remuneration) within four weeks.
Case 2: CA-00063963-001
This complaint, under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, challenged the fairness of the Complainant’s dismissal. The Respondent failed to present evidence, justify the dismissal, or follow fair procedures.
Key Failures by Respondent:
- Did not inform the Complainant about the investigation or potential dismissal.
- Failed to provide allegations, evidence, or a disciplinary policy.
- Ignored mitigating circumstances, such as the Complainant’s 19+ years of unblemished service.
Finding
The dismissal was unfair due to procedural flaws and lack of justification.
Compensation:
- Past Losses: €13,700 for 12 weeks of unemployment post-dismissal.
- Ongoing Losses: €10,703 due to lower wages in new employment.
- Future Losses: To be determined based on prospective diminished rights and redundancy benefits.
The total compensation considers the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate losses and ongoing financial impacts. The dismissal fell outside the “band of reasonableness” and violated fair procedures.
Decision
Under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Adjudicator was required to issue a decision regarding the complaint(s) in line with the relevant redress provisions outlined in Schedule 6 of the Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977–2015 mandates that the Adjudicator decide on the unfair dismissal claim by granting redress in accordance with Section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00063963-001
The Adjudicator found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent was directed to compensate the Complainant in the amount of €40,000, which the Adjudicator deemed to be fair and reasonable given the circumstances of this case.
CA-00063963-002
The Adjudicator found this complaint to be well-founded. Accordingly, they ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant €4,443.60, equivalent to four weeks’ remuneration, as a fair and reasonable sum considering the circumstances of this case.
Our Commentary
Best Practices for Managing Employment Terms, Disciplinary Procedures, and Dismissals
- Ensure Clear and Consistent Communication
To comply with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, employers must provide written notification of any changes to an employee’s terms and conditions of employment. This includes issuing updated contracts or documentation whenever there is a change in roles, responsibilities, or other terms of employment. Clear communication helps to avoid misunderstandings and ensures transparency in the employment relationship. - Adhere to Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Actions
When initiating disciplinary proceedings, employers must adhere to principles of procedural fairness. This involves notifying employees in writing that they are under investigation, clearly outlining the scope and nature of the investigation, and allowing them sufficient time and opportunity to respond to allegations. Employers must comply with natural justice principles and fair procedures, ensuring that the process is impartial and equitable. - Provide Access to Relevant Information
As part of a fair disciplinary process, employees must be granted access to relevant information. This includes sharing investigative findings, evidence, or other documentation related to the case. Additionally, employees should be given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, challenge the validity of evidence, and present their case fully. This transparency fosters trust in the process and supports informed decision-making. - Maintain Thorough Documentation of Processes
To ensure accountability and legal compliance, employers must document all steps in the investigation, disciplinary, and appeal processes. This includes detailed records of meetings, hearings, decisions made, and the reasons for those decisions. When disputes progress to external adjudication, decision-makers and relevant personnel should be available to provide evidence and clarify the rationale for the actions taken. - Consider Alternatives to Dismissal
Before deciding on dismissal, employers should evaluate all relevant mitigating circumstances. Factors such as the employee’s past performance record, willingness to cooperate during the investigation, and potential for corrective action should be considered. Exploring alternative measures, such as additional training, demotion, or a final written warning, demonstrates a commitment to fairness and proportionality in disciplinary outcomes.
By adhering to these practices, employers can uphold legal obligations, foster a fair workplace culture, and minimize the risk of disputes escalating to external legal challenges.