ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055315
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Derek Leneghan | Harvey’s Hospitality Ltd. |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | In person | Amanda Meade, HR Manager |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00067334-001 | 12/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 3/3/2025 and 19/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
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.
Background:
Unfair Dismissal Complaint – conceded by Respondent |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence under Oath as follows: He commenced work with the Respondent as a Grounds Maintenance Manager in the Respondent hotel premises on 1 August 2022 He was dismissed on 16 October 2024 for reason of gross misconduct. He submits that the basis upon which he was dismissed was fabricated. He was bullied by work colleagues and his response to them was reasonable. The investigation, disciplinary and appeal processes into his conduct were unfair. There was prejudgement against him from the start. As the Respondent only defends this unfair dismissal complaint on a limited basis – that his loss arising from the dismissal is minimal – which the Complainant accepts is €2679.00. He made every attempt to mitigate his loss and was successful in getting an alternative job with a higher salary on 24 November 2024, five weeks after his dismissal. He was investigated for gross misconduct arising out of incidents with other colleagues on 10 June, 6 August, 12 August, and 16 August. He was sent to Medmark – so that his capacity to work was assessed. When the GP found he had capacity, he was suspended and the investigation into his conduct then commenced. During the investigation the Respondent witnesses lied and corroborated each other. The disciplinary meeting was not as bad after which the Complainant believed that an accommodation would be found. However the Disciplinary Officer followed the Investigator’s recommendation that he be disciplined for gross misconduct and was dismissed on 16 October 2024. The Appeal Hearing on 1 November 2024 upheld the finding of gross misconduct and his dismissal was confirmed. The who process was concocted and prejudged. The Complainant wants his name to be cleared. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
At the commencement of the Adjudication hearing on 3.3.2025 the Respondent representative applied to amend the Respondent’s name from Windward Management Ltd to Harvey’s Hospitality Ltd. Defence On behalf of the Respondent the complaint was conceded. This is because of the low level of loss involved and because the witnesses who conducted the Disciplinary Hearing are not available to give evidence. The Respondent’s defence is limited to a submission on loss. Namely; (a) The Complainant’s loss of earnings arising from his dismissal on 16 October 2024 until 3 March 2025 (the first Adjudication hearing day) is €2679.00 and an award of compensation should be limited to that and (b) An award of €2679.00, which the Respondent concedes may be made, ignores that the Complainant provided no evidence of mitigation of loss for the five weeks following his dismissal on 16 October 2024 and (c) An award at this level also ignores the Complainant’s evidence - that his replacement job (which commenced on 24.11.2025) ended soon after and he then did not work for a period before he got other replacement work which also ended prior to Christmas 2024. The Respondent contends that they are not liable for any issues that caused his jobs to end, after they dismissed him in October 2024. The Respondent would have preferred to resolve this matter but the Complainant did not accept the terms of the agreement that was proposed, which they accept is his right.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Preliminary Application On application by the Respondent at the commencement of the Adjudication hearing on 3.3.2025 I amended the Respondent’s name from Windward Management Ltd to Harvey’s Hospitality Ltd. Findings and Conclusions This unfair dismissal complaint is conceded by the Respondent. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I am satisfied that the Respondent did not discharge the onus of proof - that the Complainant was guilty of gross misconduct or that there was evidence to dismiss him. Insofar as the Complainant states that he wishes to clear his name, this decision records that I am satisfied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on 16.10.2025. Redress The Respondent accepts that the Complainant’s figure for loss of earnings is €2679.00. In accepting this figure the Respondent has ignored the lack of mitigation of loss evidence between 16.10.24 and 24.11.2024 and has ignored the lack of evidence provided for why his work record was inconsistent after 24.11.2024, which they say is unconnected to his dismissal. I am satisfied that the appropriate level of award, which is just and equitable, is €3000.00. This sum includes his loss figure of €2679.00 and allows for a modest uplift for additional losses that arose between the first and second WRC Adjudication hearing dates. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed I award the Complainant €3000.00 |
Dated: 22nd of May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal – conceded by Respondent |