ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00054275

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  12/06/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015  and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, 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.  The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Complaint is that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed due to lack of due process.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent operates a motor franchise retail business and vehicle repair.  It employs 54 people.

The Complainant commenced employment on 31 January 2022.  His employment ended on 9 September 2024.

The Complainant raised a grievance on 7 August 2024 to Mr T, Sales Manager against Mr C, Complainant’s Line Manager.  The grievance was relayed verbally, but the Complainant requested it be investigated under the grievance procedure.  His complaint was that Mr C was constantly nit picking and taking apprentices from him affecting his bonus.

Mt T began the investigation, during which it became reasonable to suspect that the Complainant had subjected Mr C to inappropriate behaviour which could constitute harassment.  He also found that the Complainant did not miss bonus payments.  It also became clear that it would be necessary for the Complainant to not be on the premises, as he may have interfered with witnesses.  He was suspended with pay on 27 August 2024.

The findings of the investigation were that contrary to the Complainant’s complaint, it was the case that his behaviour towards his Line Manager Mr C was inappropriate, using names such as ‘Muppet’ and ‘Spastic’ and that on occasion he had threatened to physically attack Mr C.

The Complainant was called to a disciplinary meeting on 9 September 2024 where the findings were given to him.   His answers were not convincing and indicated that his position towards Mr C was as described by his co-workers who were interviewed in the course of the investigation.

The Respondent takes great pride in developing a diverse workforce to include neurodiversity and has no tolerance for language or slurs depicting individuals with a disability that would discourage them from participating in the respondent’s workforce.  It is an expressed term in the employees’ contracts that they practice dignity and respect in the workplace.

On the basis that it was reasonable to conclude that the Complainant had used this language in relation to Mr C, had undermined his dignity, respect and safety, it was concluded that these actions constituted gross misconduct and the decision was made to terminate his employment.

The Respondent submits that should the decision be found to have been an unfair dismissal, then mitigation must be taken into account and the significant contribution the Complainant made.   Case law was cited in support of the position that adjustment in awards should be mad where a Complainant contributes significantly to his/her dismissal– A PM Complainant and a Food producer ADJ-00023204, A Senior Receptionist and a Boutique Hotel ADJ-00016679.

Evidence was given on affirmation by the Manager Mr T who carried out the investigation into the Complainant’s grievance against his manager Mr C.  He considered the complaint was a serious one which warranted an investigation.  He interviewed in or around 16 people, Service Advisors, Technicians, Apprentices.  He found substantial evidence to show that contrary to what the Complainant was saying, those interviewed said that the Complainant was quite vocal about his attitude towards the manager.  Mr T escalated the matter to Head of Business, Mr B.  The Complainant was suspended and then dismissed on 9 September 2024.

Evidence was given on affirmation by Head of Business Mr B who carried out the disciplinary process following the investigation. The decision was made to dismiss the Complainant on grounds of gross misconduct.  He suspended him prior to the dismissal as during the investigation, it was picked up that there could be intimidation of younger staff in the workshop.  The decision taken to dismiss was justified on the basis that up to 16 witnesses spoke to the investigator Mr T and clearly said what language had been used by the Complainant.  The Respondent has a duty towards young people especially to ensure they are not subjected to such language and behaviour. 

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant made written and oral evidence summarised as follows:

He raised a grievance with Sales Manager Mr T against his line manager Mr C.  This resulted in an investigation, in which he had no part or involvement nor was he consulted.

The investigation findings indicating that his behaviour towards Mr. C was inappropriate were not supported by any evidence shown to him.  

The allegation is denied that he used derogatory language. He has always treated colleagues with respect and upheld an inclusive working environment. The allegation, based solely on hearsay from over a year ago, was never raised at the time during his employment. It is not supported by any written evidence or formal complaint and only emerged during the investigation. To now suggest, without substantiation, that he is discriminatory is not only irrelevant to the current matter but potentially damaging to his character. He is concerned by the lack of fairness and transparency in how this issue has been introduced.

He has no recollection, nor has there been evidence that he expressed a desire, on more than one occasion, to physically attack Mr. C.

It must be noted that contrary to the employer’s own company handbook, under the section titled “Disciplinary Rules & Procedures” (beginning on page 51), the following procedure is outlined:

➢ Employees must be informed in writing of the specific allegations or issues being raised before any disciplinary hearing;

➢ The written notification must include details of the alleged misconduct or performance issues, copies of any evidence, and the possible outcome if the allegations are upheld;

➢ Employees must be given sufficient time to prepare a response and are entitled to be accompanied at the meeting.

At no time was the Complainant informed that the meeting of 9th December was a disciplinary meeting with possible termination, nor was he provided with any written or verbal information regarding the nature of the allegations or the topics to be discussed in advance.

Evidence was given on affirmation by Ms P who was an Administrator with one of the brands.  She had a conversation with Mr C on 27 August 2024 when they were on their way to a training course.  He told her he knew that the Complainant wanted to get him into trouble.

Findings and Conclusions:

The origin of the situation in which the Complainant found himself was that he made a complaint against his line manager.  This was effectively turned on its head when some of the 16 staff interviewed by the Investigator witnessed inappropriate language and behaviour demonstrated by the Complainant in relation to his line manager.  I note the Head of Business’s evidence that the Respondent had a duty of care to younger staff and a zero tolerance for inappropriate language and behaviour.  The problem is that the Complainant was given no formal opportunity to answer allegations made, no opportunity to be represented in any disciplinary process and no right of appeal.  As pointed out, the statutory instrument S.I. 146/2000 provides the basic guidelines of due process which every reasonable employer should follow.  The Respondent’s own procedures were also not followed in this case.

I find in the circumstances the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.   Taking into account that numbers of staff interviewed were truthful and were believed in relation to what they witnessed, the Complainant has made some contribution to the situation in which he found himself.  Given the breakdown in the employment relationship, re-employment or re-engagement are not appropriate remedies.      Taking into account mitigation of losses and contributory negligence, I award him the sum of €3,000 compensation.

Decision:

Section 41 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 Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.

CA-00066126-001             Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Based on the reasons and findings above I find the complaint to be well founded and I award the Complainant the sum of €3,000 compensation.

Dated:   06/08/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: