Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Self-represented

HR Manager

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 - 00005025

26/08/2025

The dispute referred to the Commission concerned disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal, and was referred during a process at local level in relation to damage to a company vehicle.

At the time of the dispute referral, the Worker had been informed of a finding that he was responsible for the damage and liable for the repair cost of same.

The Worker works for the Employer on a part-time basis.

The issue for the Worker concerns how an investigative and disciplinary process was conducted by the Employer. 

The Employer informed the Worker that it attached responsibility for damage to a company vehicle to the Worker; that the damage occurred during the Worker’s shift on 9 August 2025 while the Worker was driving.  It sought to recoup the repair cost from the Worker. 

The Worker was sitting college exams at the time of the Employer’s investigation and disciplinary process.   He believes he was treated unfairly, put under undue stress and found guilty without substantial evidence.

The Worker accepts an advice and caution, issued by the Employer in October 2025, in relation to inspection on taking over/handing over a vehicle in accordance with the Driver Policy. 

Damage to a mobile patrol vehicle was not reported at the time the damage was caused but was reported by a driver commencing his shift on or around 9 August 2025.  An investigation was conducted; all drivers who had operated the vehicle during a relevant timeframe were interviewed.  None of the drivers admitted responsibility, but the investigating manager’s initial observation was of a possibility the Worker may have been involved in causing the damage during his shift and a further investigation meeting with the Worker was scheduled.  During the said investigation meeting on 14 August 2025, the Worker stated he was not responsible for the damage caused.

A full review was carried out by the HR Manager who concluded on the balance of probabilities on the information before them that the damage could only have occurred during the Worker’s shift and that the Worker should therefore be held responsible for the damage and cost of repair in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment.  The HR Manager informed the Worker of the foregoing in correspondence dated 18 August 2025, and further that a Form of Authority (an agreement to repay) would need to be signed by the Worker once the invoice for cost of repair became available.

The Worker disputed his responsibility and raised a grievance in an email of 19 August 2025. There were subsequently two disciplinary meetings between the HR Manager and the Worker.  It was during the disciplinary process that the within dispute was referred by the Worker to the Commission.

By correspondence dated 21 October 2025, the HR Manager informed the Worker in writing of his conclusion of insufficient evidence to uphold the allegation of minor misconduct, namely responsibility for damage to the mobile patrol vehicle, and to sustain the issue of the Form of Authority.  The outcome letter included issue of an advice and caution in relation to vehicle inspection in accordance with the Driver Policy.  The Worker did not appeal this decision.

The Employer submitted the dispute referral to the Commission was premature and not well founded.  The Worker referred a dispute while the investigative process was ongoing and prior to any disciplinary meeting.  The Worker did not utilise the grievance procedure and by failing to exhaust internal avenues of appeal, denied the Employer an opportunity to address or rectify the matters now complained of.

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

The dispute was referred to the Commission during a disciplinary process at local level.  The Employer submitted that local level processes should be utilised and exhausted prior to a dispute referral under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the “1969 Act”).  I agree with this submission insofar as it reflects the general position. 

In this case, the Employer issued correspondence dated 18 August 2025 to the Worker which, following an investigation and review by HR, attributed responsibility for the damage and cost of repair to the Worker and informed that Worker that he would need to sign and return a Form of Authority/agreement to pay when an invoice for the damage repair was received.  The following day the Worker raised a grievance about how the situation had been handled, disputed his responsibility and did not consent to any purported deduction from his wages.  The Employer’s initial response on the same date was to query the Worker’s raising of a grievance and to set out the reasons why the Worker was liable.  The Employer subsequently advised the Worker on 25 August 2025 of a disciplinary meeting with the HR Manager.  The Worker’s referral of the within dispute to the Commission occurred in or around the same time as the Employer’s communication to the Worker regards scheduling a disciplinary meeting. 

My view is that the subsequent disciplinary process in relation to alleged engagement in minor misconduct (responsibility for damage caused to a mobile patrol vehicle) was not sustainable from a reasonableness and due process perspective for the following reasons and having regard to what had gone before in terms of responsibility and liability having been attributed to the Worker.

The process followed by the Employer up to its communication to the Worker dated 18 August 2025 does not correspond with either the informal or formal procedure provided for in the Employer’s disciplinary procedure.  The Employer’s investigation, on foot of which findings were made, did not confirm that the damage was due to negligence, which is the contractual basis for a deduction from wages in accordance with the vehicle damage provisions of the vehicle policy.  The communication dated 18 August 2025, whilst not expressly referring to a disciplinary sanction, conveyed a finding that the Worker was responsible for the vehicle damage and liable for the cost of repair.  The Employer’s disciplinary rules provide for liability to disciplinary action on a finding of minor misconduct, and detail negligent damage to the Employer’s property as an instance of minor misconduct. The Employer’s findings were made further to an investigation in which the Worker was not presented with the case against him; he was not informed as to when the damage to the vehicle was reported or shown any pictures of the damage.  In consequence, he did not have sufficient information to afford him a genuine opportunity to present his side of the case, as provided for in the Employer’s own disciplinary procedures.  I therefore consider the dispute referral to have been justified notwithstanding an ongoing process at local level, in circumstances where the ongoing process was a disciplinary process arising from an unfair investigation.

By way of resolution the Worker requested the Employer review how it handled the process, in particular how the Worker did not have sufficient information to enable him to respond to the charge from the outset.  

I recommend the Employer take account of my observations on its vehicle policy and how it reached its finding of responsibility and liability vis-à-vis that policy, its investigation and disciplinary procedures, and the general principles of S.I. No. 146/2000.  I further recommend, having regard to the stressful nature of the situation for the Worker, a payment of €200.00 by the Employer to the Worker as a goodwill gesture and in full resolution of the dispute in relation to how the process was conducted by the Employer and this dispute referral.

For completeness, this recommendation does not relate to / interfere with the advice and caution that issued to the Worker by correspondence dated 21 October 2025.  

Industrial Relations – Investigation process – Finding – Disciplinary process