Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fiona  Carroll

Iss Ireland ltd              (amended on consent)  

Representatives

  Appeared In Person,

 Dermot Morris in support

Bríd Brennan, The HR Suite

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066920-001

23/10/2024

On 23 October 2024, the Complainant, a Senior Supervisor at a Facilities Company, and Lay Litigant submitted a claim for unfair dismissal in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The Complainant introduced herself as a Lay Litigant and has been the sole nominated contact for the WRC. Prior to the commencement of the remote hearing, she mentioned that she would be accompanied at hearing by Dermot Morris. Mr. Morris appeared in support.

The Respondent operates a Facilities company and was notified of the claim on 29 October 2024. The HR Suite came on notice in the case on 6 January 2025. Ms. Bríd Brennan appeared as the Respondent representative.

On 9 January 2025, both Parties were invited to hearing set for 14 February 2025.

On 17 January 2025, the Complainant forwarded her written submission in support of her case.

On 11 February 2025, I wrote to the Complainant seeking sight of:

Contract of employment

Pay slips of recent earnings

Relevant Disciplinary Procedure

Proof of loss and mitigation.

On that day, I also requested a written submission from the Respondent. This was forwarded and shared with the complainant.

All witnesses took the affirmation to accompany their evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I was left with some doubt on the origin of the circumstances which led to the initial investigation. This doubt was informed by the absence of Ms. A from hearing.

I requested some collateral documentation from this time.

I also sought a copy of the investigation report dated 5 April 2024, the letter of suspension dated 27 March 2024, complainant response and a copy of the Company Bullying and Harassment Policy.

I am grateful to Ms. Brennan for these documents, which were shared with the complainant, who responded on 13 March 2025 and largely took issue with her former colleagues’ pronouncements.

I had no difficulty in acceding to the respondent request to anonymise the Client involved in the case. There was no one present from this entity. I accept that the Respondent provides a cleaning service to this client.

The Respondent operates a Facilities Company/ cleaning services and has denied the claim of unfair dismissal.

The complainant was employed as a senior site cleaning supervisor from 21 June 2020 and was dismissed for gross misconduct, following a fair and objective process on 24 April 2024. The sanction of dismissal reflected the seriousness of the matter, and the procedural framework followed an adherence to the company Disciplinary procedure and natural justice.

Ms Brennan provided a contextual backdrop for the circumstances of the case.

On 12 February 2024, the respondent Operations Support Manager, Ms X, not present at hearing, attended a standard site meeting in a Hotel in Wexford.

 Six members of the staff present raised issues of concern regarding the complainant, which warranted an independent investigation. Four of the six mentioned participated in the investigation.

A Disciplinary investigation was hosted by Kevin Keegan, People and Culture Business Partner on 15 March 2024.

 Terms of reference were set down to address the allegations raised against the complainant.

There were 5 listed allegations.

1 multiple instances of demeaning terminology and/ or inappropriate language being used when referring to interacting with work colleagues.

2 uses of inappropriate and derogatory language when discussing a former colleague’s weight.

3 taking photographs of a former member of staff without her consent for the purpose of ridiculing her.

4 unfair and unequal delegation of tasks to subordinate staff.

5 deliberately undermining the authority of your line manager in the workplace.

In connection with the following areas listed in the company disciplinary procedure.

Improper or inappropriate behaviour against another employee that may constitute bullying or harassment

Inappropriate behaviour such as behaving dishonestly, gross insubordination, use of aggressive behaviour, excessive bad language, behaviour that is likely to bring the company, its customers or a third party into disrepute

Failure to accept the authority and reasonable instructions of a Supervisor, Manager or Director.

The Complainant attended with a colleague as support.

On March 26, 2024, the complainant was suspended from work following an approach made by Ms H that she had an unpleasant experience on board the Ferry.

The Investigation report was issued on 5 April 2024. The Complainant was informed there was a   case to answer, and the matter should proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

“Hence, I find that there is a case to answer, and the matter should proceed to a disciplinary hearing where consideration should be given as to whether disciplinary action should be taken in relation to the following breaches of the company disciplinary procedure “

A Disciplinary meeting followed on 11 April 2024.

The Complainant raised some historical detail of interpersonal conflict with one of the now live complainants. The Respondent took this on board and concluded that the complainant had been provided with two opportunities to “have her concerns addressed “at that time (2023) but did not activate a complaint.

The Disciplinary outcome issued on 24 April 2024 and concluded that the complainant’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct which warranted dismissal.

1 during the course of the investigation and disciplinary hearing, the complainant confirmed she had used “profane language “when discussing her colleagues with her partner and operations manager.

2 Inconsistent evidence, lack of responsibility or remorse.

3 Trust as between employer / employee had been undermined and was incompatible with continuing in employment.

The Respondent offered an appeal within 5 working days.

However, this was not availed of by the complainant.

Employee v Employer ADJ 381, …. “An appeal allows a dismissed employee the last chance to make their case, highlight any mitigating factors and seek protection for faulty procedures or disproportionality of sanction “.

The Respondent argued that the Respondent had followed the principles of natural justice. The complainant was permitted representation and given an opportunity to state her case.

The Respondent contended that the complainant had contributed wholly to her own dismissal. The Respondent had arrived at the decision to dismiss as being

 “Within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct that occurred “

JVC Europe ltd v Panisi [2011] IEHC 279

Governor and the Company of Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, (substantial grounds justifying dismissal resting on the respondent).

The Respondent argued at hearing that the complainant had not mitigated her loss.

Evidence of Kevin Keegan, Investigator.

Mr Kevin has been employed at the business for 7 years, where his primary function is to conduct investigations. He outlined the context of his involvement in the aftermath of the February 12 site engagement.

He gave evidence that that the complainant had received copies of the interviews with concerned staff members. Minutes were agreed.

The Complainant contested the allegations placed before her.

He conducted the investigation under the disciplinary procedure and not the bullying policy.

He confirmed that reliant on the balance of probability that the allegations were proven with the exception of no physical evidence of a photograph. He recommended that the case go to a disciplinary hearing.

The Complainant did not avail of the invitation to cross examine the witness. There was no re-direct.

In response to my request for clarifications, I probed the genesis of the complaints on February 12. I requested to review the statement of concern from the Site Area Operations Manager which led to the commissioning of the investigation.

I received this post hearing.

Evidence of Conor Heavey, Head of People, 2019

Mr Heavey conducted the Disciplinary hearing. He explained that the complainant wished for submission of a statement of a past employee, but he explained how it was not relevant.

Mr Heavey confirmed that the complainant had rejected the statements of the 4 live complainants. She contended that the efforts were a concerted effort to harm her.

The use of a profanity occurred during a private conversation. She said that she didn’t have a lot of spare time to talk to colleagues.

He did address the previous supervisor to April 2023, but this did not aide the present issues.

He restated the allegations and confirmed that 1 had fallen (photograph)

Mr Heavey confirmed that he had deliberated but concluded that trust was undermined within a position of power. The Complainant had disrespected her direct reports, in particular in the case of the pregnant worker (health and safety). He found the site manager had been undermined.

He found the cumulative behaviour unacceptable.

He did consider alternatives to dismissal. There was no opportunity to transfer due to geographical challenges. A final written warning would have been insufficient as he viewed a lack of insight and responsibility in the complainants’ submissions. He feared a return to the work force would intensify toxicity.

The Complainant was offered an appeal but did not activate this measure.

Following a second request, the complainant cross examined Mr Heavey.

In response to an immediate question on his knowledge of Ms Bs suspension from work in 2022, he confirmed that he had not participated in the process.

She asked Mr Heavey regarding the site visit in January by Ms A? He replied that he had asked his team to visit client sites.

The Complainant reminded Mr Heavey that a previous supervisor had placed Ms B in the Pet area, and he responded by saying that the complainant was the senior supervisor.

Mr Heavey confirmed that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct and not bullying / harassment. She had not asked to save her job in her interactions with him. He was unaware if all contracts were casual.

Mr Adrian Curtin, nominated as Appeal Manager had transferred 18 April 2024.

Mr Heavey conformed those protective measures had not been actioned following 12 February 2024 meeting.

In closing, the Respondent contended that the Dismissal was fair and proportionate. The Complainant did not avail of her proffered right of appeal.

She had been permitted representation within a fair process and had been provided with all documentation in advance.

The Respondent believed that the complainant had contributed wholly to her dismissal by her reliance on profane language. the impact of her behaviour on a client site had irrevocably broken the bond of trust and rules of conduct.

The Respondent had actively considered measures short of dismissal but as the complainant had admitted to the behaviour, the risk of recidivism was unacceptable high.

The Respondent took issue with the shortfall in the complainant’s evidence on loss and mitigation.

The Complainant has claimed that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on 24 April 2024.

The Complainant was employed on a part time basis and earned €30.00 per hour from 2023, a reduction from €40 in 2023. She confirmed that she had found new work on 20 May 2024, was paid minimum wage on a temporary contract of 16 hours per week. A pay slip was exhibited.

The Complainant chronicled on her complaint form that her employment had ended through a procedural framework from March 9 -April 24, 2024.

The Complainant submitted that she had been targeted by untruths from fellow staff members to force her exit. She had been denied CC TV footage.

In preparation for hearing, the complainant submitted a written submission to outline her complaint, which I now summarise.

The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent in 2020 and reflected her enjoyment in her role.

She detailed a historical interpersonal conflict with Ms B, a colleague who demonstrated challenging and aggressive behaviour towards her, which while reported to the then manager, was not followed by an intervention.

Ms B began to network with newly hired employees during 2023 and the complainant decided to leave but was dissuaded by her then manager.

The Complainant detailed that she was asked to train in a new manager, Mr Z, which she completed.

The complainant took issue with being denied CC TV footage to anchor her response to an operational matter on board the ship. She expressed a disbelief that cameras were not based in the particular area and retention was 24 hrs only.

The Complainant expressed a high level of dissatisfaction that newly hired staff were believed over her. Tenured staff were not approached for collateral feedback.

She recalled that certain staff stopped talking to her in December 2023 and she carries a level of incredulity and distress regarding how she was treated at the company and viewed her treatment as unfair.

Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant outlined that she had been the main site supervisor of cabins prior to the appointment of Mr Z. She had 25 direct reports, which increased to 35 under Mr Z.

 She recalled that Ms B was suspended in April 2023 around the same time that she was required to train up Mr Z. Ms B returned to a different area, where she couldn’t interfere. They did not interact.

By December 2023, the atmosphere had changed for the negative.

On 8 March 2024, the complainant received the allegations document but was not asked to respond outside of a requested attendance on 15 March 2024 meeting, which she agreed to attend.

On 15 March, she was provided with statements by the four live complainants. She denied the allegations but felt the outcome was already known of her having a case to answer. She was accompanied at this meeting by a colleague.

She proceeded to attend a Disciplinary hearing interview but was suspended on 26 March 2024. The Complainant said she challenged the suspension, but did not demonstrate this challenge.

1 she could not recall any wrongdoing

2 there was no evidence, just hearsay

3 She had not been in the vicinity of two of the live complainants as they purported to hear her

4 There was no photograph of the person with weight problem

5 Mr Z delegated the tasks, and the complainant completed these tasks

She requested CC Tv footage, but it was not provided. She countered the allegations once more. The Complainant said that there was no proof of wrongdoing, but the respondent went with the live complainants.

She was disheartened when she was dismissed. She did not see the point in appealing and telling her story again to the same company. The Complainant believed the allegation were fabricated and preferred to bring her case to the WRC.

In addressing loss and mitigation, she confirmed that she had always held two jobs and had diversified into a Carer role for a family member, in receipt of carers allowance. Her partner, for whom she cared also left the business some two months after her.

She gave minimal evidence on mitigation and is currently in receipt of minimum wage for 16 hrs per week.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that she didn’t have formal interaction with the live complainants as they were assigned separate areas.

She saw no point in lodging an appeal as she had already explained herself and denied putting any evidence forward to counter the allegations.

She confirmed that three of the 4 live complainants had a mere 7/8-month s tenure whereas Ms B commenced the same time as she did.

In response to my clarifications, the complainant confirmed that Ms A had asked to meet with her, and she had agreed, only to be stood down.

 “But then she texts me saying she didn’t have time to meet “

 She was unaware of the purpose of the meeting.

The Complainant confirmed that she was aware that dismissal was under consideration but concluded that she had been unfairly dismissed for want of “actual evidence “against her. The Complainant contended that there were unresolved issues between Ms B and herself.

In closing, the complainant re stated that she was unfairly dismissed.

She contended there were no findings in the investigation. The Respondent based their decision on hearsay rather than evidence. She didn’t have a chance to be heard properly. An appeal was not possible within the company.

She continued to dispute the allegations raised.

I have been requested to assess the facts which have arisen in this case and to decide whether the Complainant was unfairly dismissed?

In reaching my decision, I have had careful regard for both parties’ written submissions, their oral evidence and oral submissions.

I have also had regard for the post hearing filing of canvassed documents aimed at raising my understanding of the antecedent events in this case. I am fully aware of the Client customer relationship which exists in this case, but nobody from that company attended the hearing.

 Neither has the respondent relied on any expression of concern from that quarter.

The law on unfair dismissal from where my jurisdiction arises is provided in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, where dismissal is defined as

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

There is no dispute between the parties on dismissal.

This places the burden of proof on the Respondent in accordance with Section 6(6) of the Act.

The Employer is permitted and has relied on a defence on conduct in accordance with Section 6(4)(b) of the Act.

(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(7) of the Act provides me scope to assess the case for a reasonableness of conduct of the employer in the circumstances.

(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, 

The contextual setting of this case is a Hospitality service within a Ferry setting.

The Complainant introduced herself as a “Senior Supervisor “which involved two higher level Managers, Mr Z and Ms T, neither of whom attended the hearing.

The case itself hosted a climate of intra employee complaints.

In Redmond on Dismissal Law, Des Ryan, BL shares   the following incisive observation, which I now wish to share with the parties in the instant case.

Intra-employee complaints procedures frequently provide, in the first instance, for non-formal resolution, with the aid of a ‘support counsellor’ or some similarly named individual (typically a fellow employee, specially trained to advise). Non-formal as well as formal procedures co-exist, a further feature to distinguish these procedures from the norm. Only if a formal complaint is found to be justified will the employer’s disciplinary procedures potentially come into play. Experience shows all too often that intra-employee complaints are best resolved non-formally. Many complaints procedures now insist that a non-formal route is tried first, except in extreme circumstances

I did not find a Policy on intra employee complaint procedures. I did find the Bullying Policy which clearly set out an opportunity for informal resolution.

The Respondent relied on a February 12, 2024, planned meeting with Ms A as the antecedent event in this case.

 However, the post hearing documents captured a note by Ms A, Operations Manager which preceded this date.

“Ms B lodged a written complainant against the complainant on 16 January 2024. Ms A spoke to Ms B by phone to acknowledge receipt of her complaint on 24 January 2024, following points were at the meeting in the (named hotel) “

 I established the presence of an email from a senior manager to Ms A which referred to Ms Bs complaint on 17 January 2024.

Nobody in this case gave oral evidence or written submissions on the progression of this complaint through the Bullying Policy via the informal (preferable) or formal route.

The complaints ranged in time:

9 January -16 January 2024 and alleged bullying.

It is not clear to me that the Complainant was appraised of this complaint prior to the investigation meeting of March 15, 2024.

It does appear that the letter drew from an earlier action by the complainant.

“On 09-01-2024, Fiona put in a report including my name, stating that I told my team to slow down and take their time, which is false “

I was struck by the complainant’s absence from the invitation to meet Ms A extended by Mr Z, the complainants line manager.

I probed this.

 Mr Heavey explained that Ms A was delegated to visit sites to assess how staff were getting along with a People culture framework.

The what’s app invitation text from the Operations Manager read:

“ …. This is an opportunity for all staff to meet with Ms A in private and in total confidentiality to discuss any issues or concerns you may have regarding your service.

I advise everybody to avail of this opportunity ….. “

I asked the complainant if she had been invited to attend this session?

She confirmed she had been invited, but was stood down as Ms A had run out of time. There was no attempt to reschedule with her.

It now transpires from the Respondent documents that Ms A heard from 6 staff, 4 of whom indicated that they wished to make a complaint against the complainant.

The Complainant had 35 direct reports, and these 4 staff members do not appear to have been her direct reports.

There were 5 listed nonspecific allegations which stated:

1 multiple instances of demeaning terminology and/ or inappropriate language being used when referring to interacting with work colleagues.

2 uses of inappropriate and derogatory language when discussing a former colleague’s weight.

3 taking photographs of a former member of staff without her consent for the purpose of ridiculing her.

4 unfair and unequal delegation of tasks to subordinate staff.

5 deliberately undermining the authority of your line manager in the workplace.

The letter dated 8 March 2024 detailed these vague allegations, which were not underpinned by a date line or a firm contextual back drop. Crucially, they did not contain the letter of complaint from Ms B dated 16 January 2024, which was ultimately conflated with the vague allegations, on 15 March 2024, some two months post submission. I remain unclear as to who authored these allegations .

In Kilsaran Concrete ltd v Vitali Vet [2016] ELR 237, the Labour Court emphasised the absolute necessity for disclosure of allegations from the outset of an inquiry. This case hosted a blended process that resulted in a delayed opportunity for the complainant to respond. The cards were not all “face up from the outset.

I can fully appreciate that the respondent had identified a fault line in staff relations on this Ferry. I accept this was a genuine concern on a client site. However, by excluding the complainant from the February 12 process “for all “the Respondent acted in a partisan and unfair manner.

I have considered the notes attributed to Ms A on 12 February, while not probative, I found them illuminating as I could appreciate that Ms A was met by statements of concern from some staff regarding two workers, one of whom was the complainant.

 What I remain unclear about is just how these documents were elevated to nonspecific and vague allegations in a disciplinary investigation and then hearing   for just one of the named protagonists. I have established from the investigation report that this was directed by Ms A, but I have not found this order by her, and I have requested sight of this direction.

 I could not identify any efforts extended to manage what was clearly problem behaviour through corrective action, in the first instance.

In this, I am minded of Noonan J in Bank of Ireland v Reilly at the High Court [2015] IEHC 241

. Despite this knowledge, there was no evidence of any significant attempt by the bank to address this issue. If it was a rising trend as Mr. Kelly said, it seems to me that steps could have been taken whether by way of circular notices, team briefings or whatever method to ensure that staff were left in no doubt as to the bank’s attitude and the likely sanctions that might be imposed for a breach of the policy. In the absence of any such steps by the bank, its employees, whilst aware in general terms of the policy, might well have concluded that it was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Mr. Mahon’s uncontroverted evidence was that up to the time that Mr. Reilly was suspended, nobody had ever been either suspended or dismissed for breach of the email policy. Some dismissals did occur in the bank’s subsidiary, the ICS and although events were unfolding at that time, the dismissals did not actually occur until post-February 2009.

55. It seems to me that if a policy of zero tolerance was going to be adopted by the bank to breach of its email policy, its employees were entitled to some notice of this policy shift. This would not have been difficult to achieve. From Mr. Reilly’s perspective, it clearly never occurred to him that in sending on chain emails, he was potentially exposing himself to dismissal. I have no doubt that had he known, he is very unlikely to have engaged in this conduct. He certainly had little reason to anticipate what occurred. His evidence, again undisputed, was that there was a pornographic calendar hanging in the men’s bathroom at the Blanchardstown branch for years without any attempt by management to remove it. This smacks somewhat of a double standard within the bank.

The letter of March 8 did not identify which policy, if any was at play. It simply named relevant company policies. I will return to this.

The terms of reference were not accompanied by a signed agreement.

I am not satisfied that the complainant was provided with full and detailed notice of the allegations made by the four complainants.

The Complainant was presented with summaries of phone interviews which ranged from 8 March to 15 March at her in person meeting on 15 March 2024 and given a mere 30 minutes to process these with a colleague prior to her engagement with the Investigator.

I identified an inconsistency in the platform of communication which allowed mere phone calls with the 4 complainants and their manager, yet an in-person investigation for the complainant to be very unusual.

The Complainant has adopted a combative approach of denial and personal criticisms   to the allegations throughout this case. This did not help her case.

In my opinion, had she been met with robust, dated and contextualised allegations, she may have reacted differently and adopted a more focused approach.

My attention was drawn to the investigation meeting with Ms B on March 11, which referred to one aspect of the 16 th January complaint. Ms B did not comment on the complainant’s rebuttal.

 The augmentation of the 16 January complaint by Ms B without a corresponding process under the bullying policy was unfair.

I found Ms Y, one of the four complainants , interviewed on 8 March asked an unusual question when she stated:

“What happens if this process doesn’t end in dismissal?”

She was assured that she should have no concerns regarding Victimisation and if this occurred:

 “The employee in question being removed from the site pending the outcome of this process”

I found it unusual that a complainant would canvas for a managers dismissal .

In Hennessy v Read and Write Shop UDD 192/1978, the EAT singled out the importance of the nature and extent of enquiry prior to dismissal and what conclusions could be drawn from such an enquiry.

I have found the pre -existent complaint of 16 January 2024, which may or may not have constituted a response to the complainants’ own statement of 9 January 2024, was wrongly delayed and  withheld from the complainant.

 This was something the Investigator ought to have addressed as a complaint first in time.

I have found the Investigation unfair procedurally as it deviated   from a pathway of natural justice .

The Suspension

 The Complainant was suspended from work on full pay by email on 26 March 2024. As these details were not provided in the primary submission, I sought these documents post hearing.

“Unfortunately, I have received a complaint from a site colleague alleging that you have engaged in behaviour that could be considered disrespectful and/ or intimidating. It has been reported to me that you allegedly prevented a colleague from using the elevator by closing the doors before she could enter. I have also been reported to me that you allegedly threw linen on the floor when a colleague volunteered to return this item.”

The next day, the Complainant challenged the suspension, again by email, and sought CC TV footage. She sought the name of the complainant to assess a claim for defamation.

On 27 March, the Investigator / Suspension Manager refused to provide the name.

“Please be advised that I will not be sharing the name or contact information of the individual who raised the most recent complaint. The terms of reference issued to you on 8 March 2004 remain unaltered and therefore the most recent alleged incident falls outside the scope of my investigation. As such, you will not be required to respond to it, and I will not be broadening the scope of my investigation to include it “

Once more I reflect on Reilly

 The suspension of an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious measure which can cause irreparable damage to his or her reputation and standing. It is potentially capable of constituting a significant blemish on the employee’s employment record with consequences for his or her future career. As noted by Kearns J. (as he then was) in Morgan v. Trinity College Dublin [2003] 3 IR 157, there are two types of suspension, holding and punitive. However, even a holding suspension can have consequences of the kind mentioned. Inevitably, speculation will arise as to the reasons for the suspension on the premise of there being no smoke without fire. In Mr. Reilly’s case, his evidence was that rumours and reports circulated about him ranging from possibly being involved in fraud to participation in a tiger kidnapping.

41. Thus, even a holding suspension ought not be undertaken lightly and only after full consideration of the necessity for it pending a full investigation of the conduct in question. It will normally be justified if seen as necessary to prevent a repetition of the conduct complained of interference with evidence or perhaps to protect persons at risk from such conduct. It may perhaps be necessary to protect the employer’s own business and reputation where the conduct in issue is known by those doing business with the employer. In general, however, it ought to be seen as a measure designed to facilitate the proper conduct of the investigation and any consequent disciplinary process. Indeed, this is explicitly recognised by the bank’s own disciplinary procedures in force at the relevant time. The procedures provide, under the heading “Special Paid Leave”, as follows:

“An employee may be placed on special paid leave in order to facilitate the proper conduct of the disciplinary procedures.”

I noted in the complainant’s evidence that Ms B had previously been suspended for two weeks to aid the arrival of Mr Z and his training needs on arrival at the business.

I found this suspension to have been managed in a disproportionate manner. The Complainant was not provided with a written complaint, and she was not provided with either the name of her accuser or the CC TV footage, which was not available.

Once more, there was no visible sign of an intervention by an on-site manager to deescalate a point of conflict on the floor.

I appreciate that the complainant is a lay litigant in this area, but I found she did not demonstrate due regard for the company’s own procedures on suspension

“Suitable alternatives to suspension may be considered which, unless otherwise agreed with the employee, will only be for the period the suspension itself would have been in place.”

The Complainant was not met with this complaint prior to her suspension. I must view the suspension as punitive and as pointing to the by then growing impatience with the company’s perception of the complainant’s behaviour at work.

I have found that the complainant was not heard on the topic of her suspension mid-way through a Disciplinary investigation.

The interim action of suspension was punitive and lacked fair procedures and natural justice.

The Disciplinary Hearing:

I have already found the investigation was unfair in this case.

I have also found the suspension punitive.

Mr Heavey came to hearing as Head of People and Culture and acknowledged that he had redeployed Ms A to the staff encounter in February 2024. This was the staff encounter which failed to hear from the complainant, either as a supervisor or a Staff member.

I found his proximity to the disciplinary hearing in the face of these omissions to be overly narrow and would have preferred to see a degree of separateness in this regard.

The Disciplinary hearing reached out to the two higher managers, neither of whom made a recommendation to dismiss the complainant.

I listened carefully as Ms Heavey gave evidence. I could see that he demonstrated a genuine belief that the complainant had recorded three acts of gross misconduct, however, I find this was not based on a fair investigation.

I know my role is not to walk in Mr Heaveys shoes, but to consider against the facts whether a reasonable employer in the same position and circumstances   would have dismissed the complainant?

What occurred on 16 January 2024 amounted to the lodging of a complaint of bullying for which the Respondent found the complainant guilty without adherence to the sequential steps of the company policy on bullying.

What occurred on 12 February 2024 amounted to a “mini mutiny “of 6 staff, distilled to 4 and a declaration of inter colleague conflict from where the Respondent condensed the 5 nonspecific and undated allegations, 4 weeks before any complaint was committed to writing.

I found this to be heavy handed, despite the Respondent reliance on it being a safeguarding measure.

I found it difficult to believe that Mr Heavey had not arrived at the clear procedural flaws in the investigation and mid-way suspension.

I took some interest in Mr Z   statement when he reported town hall meetings on respect and dignity which occurred during the complainant’s suspension.

I found that the Respondent did not draw a line on first hearing of the complainant’s profanities and challenging behaviour and mark all staff’s cards that the Company intended to call out staff who deviated from optimal  standards  in staff relations and communication styles .

I found they singled her out to make an example of her which was not what I would expect a reasonable employer to do.

I have found the dismissal of this  Senior Supervisor of 4 years tenure to be disproportionate and unfair in this case.

I fully accept that the Complainant presented as a challenge to manage and may even have fallen below the behaviour expected of a Manager at the Respondent company.

However, I found a rush to dismissal rather than a firm corrective action to be unreasonable by the respondent. I found the unfairness in the procedural framework to be chilling .

I have found that the Respondent failed to assess the impact of dismissal on the complainant and completely overshot the runway on this point.

The Complainant failed to appreciate the enormity of the respondents concerns and her declared strategy of “fighting fire with fire “was implausible at times for me. I would have preferred if the Complainant had been heard on February 12 or thereabouts by Ms A. I would have preferred if she had been given the January 16 complaint consistent with its reception at the business rather than a latter day conflation .

She erred in not lodging an appeal not withstanding the incorrect window of 5 days contrary to the Policies 7 days. I do not accept her reason for not testing the decision to dismiss, much earlier and proximate to the date of dismissal. 

This dismissal was not accompanied by substantial grounds and was procedurally unfair.

The Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

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.

I have found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

There is no viable opportunity for the complainant to return to this workplace and she, herself has elected for the remedy of compensation.

I have found that the complainant made a significant contribution to her dismissal in confining her responses to personal criticisms rather than cogent accounts. I have also found that she wrongly forsook the opportunity to appeal the decision to dismiss her, notwithstanding the error in 5-day window provided as opposed to 7 days in the Disciplinary Policy. Her evidence on loss and mitigation was sub optimal.

I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €12,500 as just and equitable compensation , in respect of actual and prospective financial loss , having regard for the shortfall in proven mitigation and  the differential in wages within the new work.

I would also recommend that the Respondent considers building in a Policy for intra colleague complaints at work which emphasises the informal approach in the first instance.

Unfair Dismissal, bad language, sub optimal staff relations, procedural flaws.