Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operator

A Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Sarah Dowling IBEC

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 - 00004677

08/07/2025

The Worker began work on 8th of July 2024 and the employment ended in 10th of April 2025 with the dismissal of the Worker.

It is the Worker s case that he has been dismissed on 10th of April 2025 without recourse to proper procedures and alleges that he did not receive a payment or pay slips upon his termination of employment

 The Employer refutes all such assertions contending that the Worker he was dismissed for Serious/Gross Misconduct and that he benefitted from the implementation of correct and fair investigation disciplinary and appeal procedures.

The Worker stated that he was summarily dismissed without proper procedures.

The worker submits that he did not receive a payment or pay slip upon termination of his employment. 

The Employer submits that the employment was terminated on 10th of April 2025 on the grounds of serious/gross misconduct following a fair and impartial investigation disciplinary and appeal process furthermore the worker received all monies owed to him

The employer submits that the worker was dismissed after he had committed clocking infringements and after being absent from the production area for 1 hour 15 minutes without permission and without notifying anyone of his whereabouts.

The employer further submits that when questioned about his absence the worker lied about his whereabouts thus breaching the employers trust and confidence

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The complainant commenced employment as a general operative with acting forklift driver responsibilities on 8 July 2024 he maintained this role until his termination in April 2025 when he was dismissed on the grounds of serious/gross misconduct following a fair and impartial investigation, disciplinary and appeal process .

The employer advised the hearing that a Manager Mr. O on 5th of March 2025 had reported that the worker had been missing from the production area without permission for an hour and 15 minutes while still clocked in.    The employer stated that the manager Mr O had reported that the worker when questioned about his absence did not provide an honest accurate account of his whereabouts stating that he had been in the toilets.   The employer stated that CCTV footage had shown that the worker was in fact in his car in the carpark for the duration of the absence.

The employer advised the hearing the following this the worker was suspended from duty and was invited to an investigation meeting which took place on the 6th of March chaired by Mr. C, Category Production Manager.  The employer stated that the worker initially stated that he would not be available to attend the meeting but was reminded that while he on paid suspension he was expected to be available to attend such meetings or it could impact his pay.   The employer confirmed that following this the worker attended the meeting.

The employer advised the hearing that the purpose of the investigation meeting was to examine allegations against the worker including manipulation of the clocking policy, insubordination dishonesty and misuse of break times and failure to follow company procedures.   The employer stated that an investigation report was issued on 21st of March confirming that the matter would be referred to a disciplinary meeting which took placed on 27th of March and was chaired by Ms S Group Head of health and safety.  On 3rd third of April a disciplinary outcome was issued with a finding that the worker had knowingly breached the clocking compliance policy and was dishonest in his actions on the day in question.

Ms. S found that the workers behaviour was deemed to be an act of serious misconduct and that the trust placed by the company and the worker had been breached.  In addition, Ms S stated that the worker had not shown any remorse for his actions and deemed the appropriate sanction to be dismissal.  The worker was dismissed and paid in lieu of his notice.

The employer advised the hearing that the worker was given five days to appeal the outcome which he did by email dated 8th of April and appeal hearing was arranged for the 16th of April to be chaired by Mr B supply chain manager. Mr B’s findings were issued on the 25th of April and the decision to terminate the employment was upheld.

The employer stated that the worker had knowingly breached the policies and procedures of the company tarnishing the employers trust and confidence in him thereby justifying dismissal. The employer in support of its position cited the case of Maria Moore v Knox Hotel and Resort Limited, UD 27/2004, where the Tribunal concluded that the complainant’s actions destroyed the respondent’s trust and confidence and “rendered the continuation of the employment relationship impossible, thereby justifying her dismissal.”

in relation to the sanction imposed by the Work by the employer the employer cites of the case of Looney & Co Vs Looney UD843/1984 and the Health Board in support of their position stating that

It is not for the EAT to seek to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant nor is it for the EAT to indicate or consider whether we in the employer’s position would have acted as it did in its investigation or concluded as it did or decided as it did, as to do so would be to substitute our own mind and decisions for that of the employer. Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in his position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided and to set this up as a standard against which the employer’s actions and decision are to be judged.’

It is the employer’s position that a reasonable employer in the same position and circumstances would have reached the same determination in the circumstances and as such the decision was reasonable and fair.

Referring to the procedures followed in reaching the decision to dismiss the employer referred to the WRC Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000) and submitted that the respondent’s actions were entirely in compliance with this Code, from the perspective of the right to be informed of the allegations against him, the right to representation, the right to a fair hearing, the right to respond to the allegations and the right of appeal.

The employer also confirmed that all monies owed to the worker were fully paid upon termination of his employment

The worker in his defence did not deny that he was absent from the production area without permission for the length of time stated which was one hour and 15 minutes. The worker stated that he was also accused of manipulation of the clocking policy. The worker stated that during the investigation meeting CCTV was used to show that the worker was not on the production area when he was supposed to be and that the CCTV showed that he was instead in the car park in his car at the relevant time.

The worker at the hearing argued that the use of CCTV to show his whereabouts at the relevant time amounts to micromanagement.   The worker advised the hearing that the reason for his dismissal was a breach of trust and for not complying with the clocking policy.  The employer advised the hearing that the worker had breached the clocking policy by clocking out for a period of time following which he remained in work and then clocking back in despite not having left or taken his break. 

 The worker stated that he had previously refused to comply with the requirement to use six clocking’s a day as had been recently introduced by the respondent and that he had instead continued to operate on the 4 clocking’s a day system as had previously been the requirement. 

The worker stated that he did not agree with the change in the clocking policy which had been introduced two weeks prior to the incident. He stated that the previous policy was 4 clocking’s per day and this had now been changed to 6 clocking’s which he did not agree with and so he had refused to clock in and out for his 15-minute break.

The worker also stated that during his suspension he was not paid for one week, but he clarified that this was rectified and he had been paid what was owed to him.

The worker at the hearing stated that the respondent during his suspension had continued to include him in work emails he also stated that he had been asked to sign receipt of certain documents through Docusign, even though he had refused to use the Docusign system and advised the employer of his refusal to use that system.  The worker at the hearing sough to raise other issues in respect of his contract which had not been referenced in the complaint form or prior to the hearing of these matters.  

The worker at the hearing also stated that he had made a claim of harassment against one of the managers which he states he had first brought up at the investigation meeting.   The worker stated that he was advised at the time that he could raise a formal complaint regarding the alleged harassment.

The employer stated that the allegation of harassment was only raised once the workers own conduct was being investigated and that no problem or grievance had ever previously been raised by the worker in this regard.  The worker at the hearing agreed that he had not previously raised any issue in respect of the manager.  The employer stated that had any allegations been raised by the worker or any grievance then these matters would have been dealt with by the employer.  

In considering the within claim I note the employer’s position that the decision to dismiss was based on serious/gross misconduct. The employer at the hearing stated that the worker had also refused to comply with the recently introduced 6 clocking per day system which required all worker to clock in and out for lunch and for breaks.   I note that on the day in question the worker had been missing from the floor for one hour 15 minutes without permission and during which time his manager had been looking for him and was unaware of his whereabouts.  I note that the employer stated that the worker when questioned about his whereabouts had been dishonest in his response stating that he had been in the toilet, but that CCTV had shown that the worker was in the car park.

The worker at the hearing stated that when he had been asked about his whereabouts by the manager, he had replied that he was at the toilet. The worker stated that the use of CCTV to show his whereabouts at the time amounted to micromanagement.  The worker stated that he had been absent from the floor for one hour 15 minutes as he had to take a call regarding a loan from the credit union. 

The worker stated that when asked about his whereabouts he replied that he was in the toilet as he had also left the floor to go to the toilet earlier and he stated that when he was asked about his absence, he wasn’t 100% sure where he was at the time in question.   

The employer stated that during the appeal was the first time the complainant had stated that his absence was due to a phone call from a financial institution in respect of a loan and that he had produced no evidence of this, and it had not previously been advanced as a reason and in fact the worker had given a different reason when first asked ot explain his absence stating th at he was in th etoilet.   The employer stated that the worker is well aware that you must ask a supervisor if leaving the floor.  The employer stated that it was not just the act of leaving the floor for one hour 15 minutes, but it was the dishonesty that followed when the workers was asked about his whereabouts and also in respect of the clocking policy.

The employer stated that it was not the act of being absent but the dishonesty afterwards which resulted in the dismissal. 

 I also note that the worker in case stated that he had refused to comply with the respondent’s introduction of the six point clocking system.    

I also note that the worker did not deny that he was absent for an hour and 15 minutes and did not deny that he had not been honest when asked about his absence.  I note that the worker also did not deny the breach of the clocking procedures and agreed that he had clocked out while continuing to work and had later clocked back in.  The worker stated that he refused to comply with the respondent new clocking policy which required staff to utilise a six point clocking system.  

Having considered this matter I am satisfied that the decisions to dismiss falls within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer and thus that the dismissal was substantially fair.  As regards the procedural fairness I am also satisfied that the complaint was afforded an investigation, disciplinary and appeal procedure in accordance with the respondent’s policies and thus the matter was also procedurally fair.  

Accordingly, I do not recommend in favour of the worker in respect of this matter.

I do not recommend in favour of the worker in respect of this matter.