ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002673
Complaint for Resolution:
Complaint/Dispute Reference No.
Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977
6th April 2016
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 7th July 2016 and 16th September 2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly
In accordance with Section 80 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Attendance at Hearing:
A Health Care Assistant
A health service provider
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 3rd July 2006 to 15th December 2015 and her fortnightly rate of pay was €960.00c. The Complainant was submitting that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent and the Respondent was denying the complaint. A separate claim under the Industrial Relations Act was withdrawn at the hearing (CA-00003706-001 refers).
Summary of Respondent’s Position:
The Respondent was denying that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed and submitted that she had been dismissed for good cause and that fair procedures that fully respected her rights and entitlements were fully observed by the Respondent in effecting the dismissal.
The Respondent said that the Complainant commenced employment with them as a Health Care Assistant (HCA) in 2006.
The Respondent said the Complainant had 629 calendar days sick leave between April 2006 and May 2010, at which stage she went on maternity leave. A copy of the Complainant’s attendance / absence record for the period from 17th April 2006 to 21st October 2012 was submitted to the hearing. This record was not challenged or disputed by the Complainant.
The Complainant was due to return to work in November 20110. However she did not return to work at her named place of work and she was dismissed by the named Chief Officer on 4th November 2015.
The Respondent said the Complainant was informed of her right to appeal the dismissal decision and the appeals process but she did not avail of it.
The Respondent said the Complainant was dismissed for 2 reasons, namely:
Her poor attendance record
Her failure to declare convictions to the Employer on a Garda Vetting Form
The Respondent submitted a copy of the Final Report of the Investigation Team consisting of a named ER Manager and a named Consumer Services Officer commissioned by the General Manager in the Complainant’s area of work. The Investigation Team concluded as follows:
In relation to the Complainant’s attendance pattern, the Investigation Team are in no doubt that her attendance pattern is unacceptable in terms of:
(a) what is required from an employee contractually, and
(b) the effects it has on service provision.
Therefore we find this complaint to be upheld.
2. In relation to the non-disclosure of charges and convictions, the Investigation Team have established that (the Complainant) signed the form dated 09/12/2012. She admitted this at interview and the form physically presented to her. Whatever mitigating circumstances she has presented as a defence cannot take away from this fact.
As this process is at Stage 4 of the Disciplinary Procedures and as dismissal is a potential outcome, the Investigation Team were anxious to allow (the Complainant) an opportunity to present all mitigating circumstances. This is evident in out Report. Despite this we were unable to unearth a paper trail to support parts of her defence, i.e. that meetings took place at which she believed the issues were already dealt with. We therefore uphold this complaint by the Employer.
The Investigation is satisfied that both complaints are upheld.”
The Respondent said that although a Draft Copy of this Report was provided to the Complainant for her attention and any response she did not provide any response.
On foot of this Report the Complainant was requested to attend a Stage 4 Disciplinary Hearing on 18th August 2015. The Hearing was conducted by the named Chief Officer, who was accompanied by a named IRO and the Complainant was accompanied/represented by her father, who is an employee of the Respondent at the same location the Complainant worked at.
At the Hearing the Complainant confirmed that she had received the Report. The parties were informed that the purpose of the Hearing was hear the Complainant’s side of the story and to allow her make any submissions/representations she wished to make and the Chief Officer would then decide on the outcome.
The Complainant told the Meeting that she had had 3 meetings regarding her job and said that she would wish to have a decision on that day.
In relation to the issue of Garda Clearance the Complainant told the Meeting that when she committed the offences involved she was young and foolish. She understood that these issues had been dealt with by two named members of management. She had attended at rehabilitation and counselling with a named organisation. She had thought that as the time was up for the convictions for drink driving that she did not need to declare them, they were at that stage off her driving licence; she did not realise that it would stay on her record for a lifetime. She said that she had spent 6 weeks in the Rehabilitation and Counselling Service and one day per week for a period of one year and she said that her workplace and the managers and workers there were aware of her situation.
In relation to attendance/absence the Complainant acknowledged that her attendance had been poor. She said that she had had 2 miscarriages and a pregnancy and suffered from post natal depression and had sent in to the Respondent a lot of medical certificates. She said that she liked working in her employment, that she got on well with the other staff and the clients.
The Complainant’s father spoke at the Meeting. He said that management had been good to his daughter; that she was very young; she had made mistakes; that everyone makes mistakes. He said that however she is now independent, with her own home, her own car and her own child now.
He said that he was quite confident that all his daughter’s issues were now behind her and that he and she had placed all their cards on the table.
On 4th November 2015 the Chief Officer wrote to the Complainant to confirm his position, which was that having considered the Report and the evidence at the Hearing he had taken the decision to dismiss her from the employment. In the same letter he informed her of her right to appeal his decision and that any appeal should be made in writing within 7 working days and should clearly set out the grounds for the appeal and to whom it should be sent. The Respondent said that no appeal was submitted by the Complainant despite that letter and two further ones of 18th November 2015 and 3rd December 2015.
On 10th December 2015 the Secretary of the Dismissals Appeals Committee wrote to the Complainant in which she stated:
“I refer to my letter of 18th November and 3rd November requesting you to submit the grounds for your appeal.
As you have failed to comply with this requirement under the… Disciplinary Procedures, I regret to inform you that the…will no longer consider your dismissal appeal and your case has now been closed
A copy of this correspondence has been sent to ….. Employee Relations Manager, …. Any further correspondence in relation to the termination of your employment with … should be sent directly to …. at the following address:”
The Respondent said that they in all the circumstances it was reasonable of them to conclude that they could not be assured that the Complainant would provide regular uninterrupted attendance at work, which they said was a core, essential and fundamental part of a contract of employment and in such circumstances it was reasonable of them to conclude that they had no reasonable option but to dismiss her from their employment.
The Respondent said that in relation to the lengthy period when there was no contact between the parties this was in part due to the fact of the nature of the Complainant’s illness, of postnatal depression and of the Respondent being sensitive and allowing her space to deal with that issue.
The Respondent said that prior to the end of her maternity leave, discussions with the Complainant regarding her return to work were held. She requested specific hours that were not available within her workplace at that time. Management contacted other services to ascertain if she could be accommodated elsewhere, but no alternative suitable to the Complainant could be found.
On completion of her maternity leave in November the Complainant commenced sick leave. In February 2011 the Complainant was declared fit for work by the Occupational Health (OH) Department and she met with management in that regard. In the days immediately prior to her scheduled return the Complainant informed management that she would not be returning at that time due to illness. She was referred to the OH Department.
The Complainant submitted one medical certificate to cover until mid March 2011. Management wrote to her reminding her of her obligation under the Sick Leave Policy. However she did not submit any further medical certificates.
The Respondent said that an OH Review was scheduled for June 2011; however the Complainant did not attend.
In early 2012, the Complainant informed that she wished to return to work. A named DON met with the Complainant on 9th February 2012 to progress her early return. At the time the service in which the Complainant worked was severely short staffed due to the moratorium and every effort was being made to get staff back to work as quickly as possible.
The Respondent said that as the Complainant had not worked for in excess of 6 months, she had not submitted medical certificates, thus she could not be deemed to be on sick leave, so an updated Garda Vetting Form was required. The Complainant completed and signed the Garda Vetting Form, which was duly processed; in addition she was referred to the OH Department. In August 2012, the Complainant informed the DON that she had been advised that her Garda clearance was through. The DON informed the Complainant that they did not at that stage was any communication in that regard. Having spoken to the Respondent Garda Vetting Department the DON stated that the Garda Vetting process was not yet finalised and that a risk assessment would have to be completed.
It subsequently transpired that the Complainant did not in fact have Garda Clearance.
The Respondent said that it was clear that the Complainant was not in a position to perform the job she was doing prior to her going on sick leave on either 1st December 2009 or 24th February 2010 until she was certified a by the OH Department as fully fit to return to her normal duties.
They said that after that she required Garda Vetting Clearance before she could return to work and that Garda Vetting Clearance was not forthcoming for reasons stated in the foregoing, i.e. the non-disclosure of charges and convictions.
The Respondent said that it was the combined two factors of the Complainant’s attendance/absence record and the non-disclosure of charges and convictions that led to her dismissal following a full, fair and thorough Investigation and Disciplinary Procedure that fully respected the Complainant’s rights that led them to the conclusion that they had no reasonable option but to dismiss the Complainant.
The Respondent said that there decision was a reasonable decision of a reasonable employer and submitted that on the basis the complaint was not well founded and it should be rejected.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The length of time taken before said disciplinary procedure concluded.
The Complainant does not accept that she failed to disclose all relevant criminal convictions. The complaint does not accept that her poor attendance record is a basis for her dismissal given that the overwhelming majority of her absences were due to illness that were certified by a medical doctor.
The Complainant submitted that it was prejudicial for her not to be paid her wages during the disciplinary procedure and that this shows a prejudicial determination prior to the Disciplinary Hearing.
The Complainant submitted that the period taken to complete the disciplinary procedure was grossly excessive and did not comply with fair procedures.
On 14th February 2013, the Complainant wrote to the named Director of Services seeking an update in relation to her position. The Director of Service responded on 25th February 2013 in which she stated that following the meeting attended by the Complainant the completed Risk Assessment was returned to the Area Recruitment Manager and she stated that to date she has had no further correspondence in relation the matter and she would revert to the Complainant when further information was available.
The General Manager by letter of 20th May 2014, informed the Complainant that following a review of her file an investigation would commence under the Respondent’s Disciplinary Procedure and that this Investigation was necessary due to her poor attendance record and her alleged failure to comply with the Gardaí Vetting Procedure in respect of previous convictions. A copy of the Draft Terms of Reference was enclosed and she was informed of the identity of the two members of the Investigation Team and was asked to indicate by return her acceptance of the Draft Terms of Reference and the membership of the Investigation Team.
By way of a handwritten internal memo of 14th October 2013 contained in the Complainant’s personnel file a decision to proceed with Stage 4 of the Disciplinary Procedure was confirmed.
On 10th December 2015 the Complainant was informed by the Respondent of the decision to dismiss her. The Complainant said that this meant that it was some 18 months from the start of the disciplinary procedures and a total of 25 months from when the decision was made by the Respondent to invoke the Disciplinary Procedure until the date of the dismissal.
The Complainant said that at all times she was assured by two named members of staff that her job was secure and she said that as such she acted to her detriment by not seeking alternative employment as she believed she would be reinstated to her previous position/job.
The Complainant submitted that her absences related to her pregnancy and that most absences were certified. She said that this was a difficult time for her as she had suffered a miscarriage and after the birth of her second child she suffered postnatal depression.
In relation to her criminal conviction and the nondisclosure of these on the Garda Vetting Form the Complaint submitted that it was her belief that those convictions were spent.
The Complainant obtained a copy of her Occupational Health file. She said that there are a number of helpful items to establish that the Respondent was on full notice that she was fit and able to return to work. As a consequence of having being medically certified fit to return to work she was also in a position to engage in the disciplinary procedures. It was submitted that, due to the exorbitant delay of some 4 year and 10 months, that fair grounds and fair procedures could not be complied with and as such the Complainant’s position has been prejudiced as to the delay. The Complainant said that the equity doctrine of delay defeats equity arises.
The Complainant said that on 6th December 2010, the named CNM2 requested that the Complainant be examined by Occupational Health (OH) to ascertain if she was fit to return. On 15th February 2011, the Complainant attended OH for this review and a copy of the Occupational Health Doctor’s handwritten notes in that respect state;
“02/03/10 Returned to work last break but found the going difficult. Back sore, short of breath and even mild exertion worked ++ about infections, GP has certified her unfit for work before FDD.
15/02/11 Became quite depressed post natally and was put on…. By GP. This helped and she now feels better.
After baby was born she was given a Council house in ……… and lives there alone. Mother lives 8 miles away.
Now feels fit to return to work day shifts only, apparently this is not currently available, advised her to talk to (2 named persons).
Action: Fit for work but hours given don’t suit . Discharge
The Complainant said that this proves that OH approved her return to work. She said the fact that the hours sought were not available is irrelevant as to her complaint as fair grounds and fair procedures were not adhered to.
On 15th February 2011 OH wrote to the named CNM2 to inform her of the OH findings.
Shortly after this a named Manager held a meeting with the Complainant and her Father (also an employee of the Respondent). At this Meeting the Manager informed that there would be availability to cover holiday relief for 2 days per week: she confirmed to the Complainant that the hours she requested were not available and that thus this was the only option open to the Complainant at that time and the Complainant agreed to return to work on those terms.
A follow up referral was requested from the named CNM2 on 9th February 2012 and this request is some 12 months subsequent to OH informing that the Complainant was fit to return to work.
On 14th May 2012, OH examined the Complainant and on that date it was established that the Complainant was fit to return to work and OH by letter of the same date stated this. This letter stated:
“(The Complainant) attended me for assessment today following your referral date 9th February 2012
I note that she has been on sick leave from work now since she was due to return from maternity leave which commenced in November 2009.
(The Complainant) was last seen her by Dr. …. In February 2011 when it appears that she was considered fit for return to work but had some difficulties with the shifts on offer to her.
She was referred for review by ….. on 22nd May 2011 and failed to attend for an appointment on 9th June 2011.
Having assessed (the Complainant) today it appears that her ongoing sickness absence has been due to persistent postnatal depression combined with personal difficulties. I consider her now fully fit to return to her normal duties and rostered shifts as discussed with ……by ‘phone today.
I am optimistic that she will return to providing you with a regular and efficient service but would be happy to review her at any time should you have any future concerns regarding her fitness for work.”
The Complainant submitted that since February 2011, she has been fit and able to return to work and that she has never refused to return to work. She also submitted that due to the delay of the Respondent in invoking the Disciplinary Procedure that she has been treated unfairly. She contends that fair procedures have not been complied with and as such her dismissal on 12th December 2015 2015 was unfair under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
In response to the question of why she had not appealed against the dismissal decision the Complainant said that she had thought and understood that an appeal that been submitted on her behalf and that it was only when she received the letter dated 10th December 2015 from the Secretary of the Dismissal Appeals Committee that she realised that it had not. She said that she immediately sent, by registered post a response. The Complainant submitted evidence of the sending of the registered letter. A copy of the letter was submitted to the hearing. It was handwritten on back of the letter dated 10th December 2015 and states:
“15 Dec 2015
To whom it may Concern
I (the Complainant) am writing to you on behalf of my appeal. I was not aware that ye had no correspondence from the first letter I had sent ye received on 12th Nov, as all letters have gone to my Solicitor and he will be dealing with it as I am sure he is busy but he has assured me he is dealing with it and you will be getting correspondence shortly.
I am appealing the Case on the grounds that:
I was signing Contracts till this year
The case has been going on for 5 years
I had postnatal depression, which ye have certs for
I was dismissed on garda vetting, which both Manager and Line Manager was aware of at the time and I continued working after right up till the end of 2010”
The Complainant submitted that she was effectively suspended for 4 years and 9 months
The Complainant gave evidence of her efforts to secure alternative employment and mitigate her losses.
The Complainant sought that her complaint be upheld.
Findings and Decision:
Section 80 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with Section 7 of the 1977 Act.
I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions made and I have concluded as follows.
There are some very strange aspects to this case, most notably the lengthy period when there apparently was no contact between the parties. There is a marked and unusual lack of any paper trail in relation to this period from either 1st December 2009 or 24th February 2014. Here we have a situation whereby it appears that the Complainant was not submitting medical certificates after February/March 2011. This is most unusual, yet the Respondent apparently accepted this. Most employer’s would insist on either regular, medical certificates or a medical certificate of fitness to return to work at the full range of duties she performed before going on sick leave on 1st December 2009 (before she went on maternity leave) followed by a return to work at that position. On the other hand the Complainant submits that she was actually fit for and available for work during this period. But she did not submit certificate(s) of fitness to return to work or indeed report for work during that period, nor did she write to the Respondent seeking clarification of her position. This is even more odd. I am satisfied that the Complainant was fully aware of her rights and how to exercise them and I note that she was a member of a trade union upon whom she could rely for advice, support and representation in that respect. The Complainant states she was having regular discussions with members of staff in relation to her position. The Respondent on the other hand states that they were aware of the reason for the Complainant’s absence was postnatal depression and they were being sensitive to that position and were allowing her space to deal with that issue. While I have reservations with both parties position in this respect, the position of the Respondent makes more sense than that of the Complainant and accordingly it is accepted by me. I do not understand how an employee could allow a situation to drift for so long (years) while left with no work or wages.
The Complainant states that she was certified by the Respondent’s Occupational Health Department (OHD) as fit to return to work on 15th February 2011 and that means that OHD had approved her return to work and that she was medically fit to return to work from that date. This is to ignore the heavy qualification on a return to work contained in that Report which stated inter alia “Now feels fit to return to work day shift only, apparently this is not currently available, advised her to talk to …. Action: Fit for work but hours given don’t suit. Discharge.” The letter sent from OHD to the Complainant’s Line Manager states that she “was seen on 15/02/11. She suffered from post natal problems and is still on treatment but wishes to return to work. For family reasons she has requested to work day shifts only, but understands that they are not currently available. She indicated that she would be willing to work in Housekeeping. I advised her that in the current climate that if she wants to work she may have to compromise on her hours.” (my emphasis).
As can be seen from the above the Complainant was not actually in a position to return to her work in the position and conditions that she had been employed in. If an employee is not in a position to return to the job they were performing before going out on sick leave under the conditions applying to that position there is no obligation on an employer to provide that employee with other work. Such a position means in effect that an employee is not in a position to perform the work they were contracted to do. An employer cannot be expected to allow an employee to pick and chose the hours or shifts they will work and certainly not in situations where the working hours sought are not suitable or compatible with that job. I am completely satisfied that the Respondent made genuine efforts to facilitate the Complainant including contacting other services within the employment, but it simply was not possible. I note that at this time the Respondent was very severely short-staffed due to the moratorium and were making every possible effort to get employees who were absent back to work and would have eagerly grasped at any opportunity for the Complainant or any other employee to get back to work. While I can readily understand the Complainant’s wish to have working hours available to her that suited her personal or family needs the Respondent can only provide work that suits to provide the services they provide. I am completely satisfied that the main reason for the Complainant being unable to return to work at a much earlier date was the fact that she was not available to work her normal working hours.
It is a fact that the first time there was confirmation, medical and otherwise, that the Complainant was available to return to work her normal duties was the letter of 14th May 2012 from OHD confirming that fact.
However at this stage because of the length of time and circumstances of her absence fresh Garda Clearance was required and here is where the second problem arose. As part of this process it transpired that the Complainant had failed to declare her charges and convictions.
The Respondent then decided that it was necessary and appropriate for them to commission an Investigation of the two issues of concern, namely the Complainant’s:
Poor attendance/absence record -and-
Failure to declare charges and convictions on the Garda Vetting Form
This Investigation was conducted in a scrupulously fair and transparent manner that fully respected the Complainant’s rights and that is in accordance with fair procedures and natural justice and I note that fact is not in dispute. I note the following in that respect:
The Complainant was informed of the names and identities of the proposed investigators and the proposed Terms of Reference and was invited to submit any comments or observations in that respect, but no comments or observations were made by the Complainant.
The Complainant was afforded the opportunity to be interviewed and to comment and/or respond to any and all evidence and submissions and was provided with all evidence and statements etc.
The Complainant was afforded the opportunity to be represented during the process.
A copy of the Preliminary Report was presented to the Complainant for any comment or observation by her, but none was received.
The Investigation Team upheld the two complaints against the Complainant and I accept that this was an entirely reasonable decision in light of the evidence available to the Investigation Team and the facts of the matter.
On foot of this Report the Complainant was called to a Stage 4 Disciplinary Hearing on 18th August 2015. Again I am satisfied that this Disciplinary Hearing was also conducted in a fair manner that is in accordance with fair procedures and natural justice and that respected the Complainant’s rights.
Subsequent to this Disciplinary Hearing by way of letter of 4th November 2015 the Complainant was informed by the Chief Officer of the decision to dismiss her. I note that this is a period of some 11 weeks. While I accept that a decision to dismiss an employee is a serious one and not one to be taken lightly, and should always be a ‘considered decision’, 11 weeks is an unduly long period and is not normal. A matter of days or at most a few weeks is more normal and there was no particular reason for this one to take any longer. It is not fair to an employee to be left in ‘a vacuum’ awaiting a decision on such a crucial matter to them for so long. The delay in conveying the decision to the Complainant in this case was unfair to the Complainant and is in breach of best practice and fair procedures.
In relation to the question of an appeal I am satisfied that there was genuine miscommunication and misunderstanding on the part of the Complainant that was responsible for her failure to appeal the dismissal decision within the time limits. The Complainant understood that her legal Representative had submitted an appeal and upon becoming aware of the fact that it had not by the letter of 10th December 2015, she replied by way of handwritten letter sent by registered post, but unfortunately that letter was apparently not seen by the appropriate person. This is a series of unfortunate occurrences that are not the fault of any individual and I am drawing no further conclusions from it.
In relation to the Respondent’s reasons for the dismissal of the Complainant these were /are very serious issues that most certainly warranted investigation and disciplinary or corrective action, but the question I must consider is did they justify dismissal and was dismissal in light of all the facts and circumstances the reasonable action of a reasonable. In that respect I note the following:
The Complainant’s attendance/absence record: By any standard the Complainant’s attendance/absence record was poor and a cause of concern to any employer.
The Respondent submitted an attendance record for the Complainant for the 4.5 year period from 17th April 2006 to 21st October 2012 that was unchallenged and accepted by the Complainant. This record shows that the Complainant was absent for a total of 629 calendar days in 22 instances and 7 separate days are uncertified.
This is an absence rate of 38% (more than one full year out of the 4.5 years) and is extremely high by any standard and indeed so too is the number of instances. It is further the case that 7 days uncertified sick leave is also high and would lead to disciplinary action in most employments.
The Complainant misses the point entirely in arguing that as the majority of her absences were medically certified there was no cause of concern by the Respondent. The issue is not were all or most of the Complainant’s absences medically certified, but rather in light of her absence record was the Complainant in a position to provide regular uninterrupted attendance at work, which is a core part of an employees’ contract of employment that goes to the heart of that contract and the absence of which leads to that contract of being ‘frustrated’ and justifies that contract of employment being terminated by the employer on the grounds of ‘failure to perform’ - and this is a matter of settled law.
The failure of the Complainant to declare her charges and convictions to the Respondent on the Garda Vetting Form: It is a fact that the Complainant did not declare her charges and convictions on the Garda Vetting Form. The question on the Form is “Have you ever been convicted of an offence in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere? there is a No and a Yes box beneath and the Complainant has ticked the No box. I note that the question here is not a complex one and is not qualified by any time limit such ‘an offence, within the last 5 or 10 years (and it should be noted than even had it been, some of the charges and convictions were within those timescales). Accordingly, it is difficult to understand how and why the Complainant thought it appropriate to answer ‘No’ to this question.
Notwithstanding the above I do accept that it was not the intention of the Complainant to deliberately mislead the Respondent and indeed such an attempt would be excessively foolish as apart from the fact that the Garda were always going to inform the Respondent when the Form was submitted, the Complainant lived and worked in a relatively small country area where the fact of her charges and convictions would be known to many including almost certainly to her work colleagues. Nevertheless the Complainant’s carelessness in this matter inevitably must have reasonably led the Respondent to question if they could continue to have trust and confidence in her.
While this matter may not of itself have justified the dismissal of the Complaint, it certainly, along with the other matter would lead any reasonable employer to question if they could continue to employ the Complainant.
I note that, in accordance with many determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), it is not for me to substitute my judgement for that of the employer, but rather to decide if the decision of the Respondent was the reasonable decision of a reasonable employer in light of all the circumstances of the case and of all the facts and information available to them at the time they made the decision and I am satisfied that the Respondent has met that burden in the instant case.
Based on the above findings, I find and declare that the Respondent did not unfairly dismiss the Complainant and accordingly I find and declare that the complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 is not well founded; it is rejected and is not upheld,
Seán Reilly, Adjudication Officer
Dated: 7TH December 2016