Adjudicator Rules in Favour of Respondent Over Unfair Dismissal Claim for Gross Misconduct
Background
The dispute concerns the alleged unfair dismissal of an Airside Operations Manager following an appeal in October 2023. Employed since March 1998, they were promoted to the final role in August 2008. Their salary was €65,143 per year for a 36-hour workweek. The dispute concerns the alleged unfair dismissal of an Airside Operations Manager following an appeal in October 2023. Employed since March 1998, they were promoted to the final role in August 2008. Their salary was €65,143 per year for a 36-hour workweek.
Complainants View
Unfair Dismissal Claim (CA-00059872-001)
The complainant, represented by a union representative, alleged unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. While acknowledging an arrest for alleged theft on June 29, 2023, the complainant argued that the subsequent investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal were unfair and biased.
It was claimed that the employer failed to consider severe mental health issues, which were medically documented and linked to personal and family difficulties. The representative criticized the lack of meaningful employee support, suggesting that seeking assistance was viewed as “career suicide.”
The appeal hearing on October 9, 2025, was described as a mere confirmation of the original dismissal decision made on August 22, 2024, with no genuine review of the circumstances. The complainant argued that natural justice was not upheld, particularly due to the disregard of extensive medical evidence.
A legal precedent was cited, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and fairness in disciplinary actions. It was argued that dismissing a long-serving employee with a previously unblemished record was excessive given the mitigating circumstances.
Minimum Notice Claim (CA-00059872-002)
As the dismissal was classified as Gross Misconduct, no notice was provided. The complainant sought statutory minimum notice payment under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
Respondents View
Unfair Dismissal Claim (CA-00059872-001)
The respondent, represented by a legal advisor and senior managers, provided extensive oral testimony and a detailed written submission.
The key facts were undisputed—the complainant was arrested for theft from airport retailers. A thorough investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal were conducted, with full representation by a trade union. All procedures followed legal guidelines and established employment policies.
The central issue was a breach of trust between the employer and the complainant. Given the high-security nature of the airport, particularly in airside operations, employees must meet the highest trust and reliability standards.
The disciplinary decision-maker considered all evidence and union representations before concluding that dismissal was the only viable option. No suitable alternative roles were available within the stringent regulatory environment.
The appeal officer reaffirmed the decision on October 9, 2023, emphasizing that trust in the complainant was irreparably damaged. While medical reports were reviewed, they did not override the fundamental breach of trust. The complainant had also not sought occupational or welfare support before the incident.
Management confirmed that alternative roles were considered but none were feasible given security and safety requirements.
The respondent cited multiple legal precedents supporting dismissal for gross misconduct and argued that the adjudication process should focus on procedural fairness, not re-examining the employer’s decision. Proportionality arguments were countered with case law affirming the band of reasonableness in dismissal decisions. Reinstatement or re-engagement was deemed inappropriate based on Irish Supreme Court rulings.
Minimum Notice Claim (CA-00059872-002)
As the dismissal was classified as Gross Misconduct, the respondent argued that no notice was required under Section 8 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
Findings and Conclusions
Unfair Dismissal Claim (CA-00059872-001)
Key Questions Considered
- Was the dismissal unfair?
- If not, was the penalty proportionate? The possible remedies included reinstatement, re-engagement, or financial compensation.
Fairness of the Dismissal
The adjudicator found that the employer followed a full and fair investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal, in line with legal requirements and best practices. Established legal principles, including those outlined in Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd (1997), were met.
After reviewing oral and written testimony, the adjudicator concluded that the dismissal was procedurally fair and complied with the principles of natural justice.
Proportionality of the Sanction
The key issue was whether dismissal was a proportionate response. Legal precedent confirms that adjudicators should not replace an employer’s decision but instead assess whether it was reasonable given the circumstances.
The complainant held a senior airside operations role, requiring a high level of trust due to safety and regulatory demands. The decision-makers consistently maintained that this trust had been irreparably broken. Alternative roles were considered but deemed unsuitable, both due to the nature of the trust issue and the lack of available positions.
The employer also reviewed medical and psychological evidence, acknowledging the complainant’s personal difficulties. However, it was determined that these factors did not outweigh the fundamental breach of trust.
Final Adjudication
The adjudicator ruled that the dismissal was fair. The employer, with its specific aviation and safety expertise, was best placed to assess trust and confidence issues. Given the importance of these factors in a highly regulated environment, the decision was found to be reasonable.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, was not upheld.
Minimum Notice Claim (CA-00059872-002)
Since the dismissal was found to be fair and classified as Gross Misconduct, no notice was required under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The claim was dismissed.
Decision
Under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015, and Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, a decision must be made based on the relevant legal provisions.
Unfair Dismissal Claim (CA-00059872-001)
The claim of unfair dismissal is not upheld. The complaint fails.
Minimum Notice Claim (CA-00059872-002)
As the dismissal was deemed fair, the claim for minimum notice fails.