ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001527
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Sales Assistant | A Retailer |
Representatives | Barry Crushell, Crushell & Co Solicitors |
|
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00001527 | 11/07/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Date of Hearing: 01/05/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
The Worker attended the hearing along with her representative. Although, I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the time and date of the hearing, there was no attendance by them on the day.
Background:
The Worker began employment as a Sales Assistant on 6 August 2022. She stated that she was unfairly dismissed without due process having wrongfully been accused of theft. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker began employment as a Sales Assistant on 6 August 2022 and was later promoted in November 2022. Until May 2023, she worked without any issues or disciplinary concerns and enjoyed her role. However, on 15 May 2023, she was called into a meeting by the Employer with two other colleagues, during which they were accused of potentially stealing an envelope of cash that had gone missing on 28 April 2023. The Worker had been on duty on 28 April 2023 alongside another staff member and was responsible for depositing an envelope of cash into the store's safe. She maintains that she encountered difficulty inserting the envelope into the safe and used a ruler to push it through at the suggestion of her line manager who she contacted on the same day to report the difficulties she had. This incident was observed by her co-worker, and they both left work believing the matter had been handle correctly. Despite this, during the meeting on 15 May 2023, the Employer singled her out and suggested she was responsible for the missing cash, apparently because she had physically handled the envelope. The Worker requested access to CCTV footage from 28 April 2023 to clarify the matter. She was informed by the Employer that no such footage showed the envelope going missing. Following this, the Employer then shifted the focus of the blame toward the employees working the next day, 29 April 2023. The situation escalated further when, at the end of this accusatory meeting, the Employer informed the Worker and her colleagues that the business would be closing immediately, resulting in the abrupt loss of their jobs. Subsequently, the Employer told customers that the business was closed due to an active police investigation. However, when the Worker contacted the Gardaí, she was informed that no such investigation had been opened in relation to the Employer’s business. On 2 June 2023, the Worker was contacted by the Employer and informed that her employment had been terminated for gross misconduct. This was the first formal communication she received regarding her dismissal. The Employer claimed that her actions had not met company expectations but did not specify which actions or incidents constituted gross misconduct. The Worker was surprised by this accusation, noting that she had never previously received a warning or been the subject of any disciplinary process. She followed up by requesting more information regarding the allegations, as well as written confirmation that the store had in fact closed—since this was the original explanation for her dismissal. However, she received no reply from the Employer. Due to the manner in which her employment was terminated, the Worker states she has suffered emotional distress and anxiety because she was wrongfully accused of theft without evidence, was denied due process, and was dismissed without proper explanation or documentation. Additionally, misinformation was circulated by the Employer regarding a supposed police investigation, and no follow-up communication was provided to clarify the basis for her dismissal. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend the hearing on the day. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Labour Court’s recommendation in Beechside Company Limited, T/A the Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker (LCR 21798) makes it clear that the obligation to follow fair procedures is not limited to employees with 12 months’ service under the Unfair Dismissals Act. Indeed, both the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Labour Court have consistently held that even short-service employees are entitled to the protections outlined in Statutory Instrument 146/2000 — the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. Had these procedures been properly followed in the present case, the Worker would have had the opportunity to contest the allegations against her and receive a fair hearing. Accordingly, I find that her dismissal was unfair. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In the absence of any fair procedures having been afforded to the Worker, as set out above, and bearing in mind that it took her 20 weeks to find alternative employment, I recommend that the Employer pay her the sum of €10,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Dated: 27/05/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|