Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Declan Walshe

Poolville Limited

Representatives

Represented himself 

Frank Drumm BL

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-00066675-001

14/10/2024

The respondent has around 70 employees in facilities in Dundrum and Tallaght in Dublin.  They produce labels, leaflets and cartons for the pharmaceutical, medical devices, cosmetics and food and drinks industries.  The complainant is a lithographic printer, with many years’ experience operating complex printing machines.  He commenced employment with the respondent on December 5th 2022.  His annual salary was €48,000. 

Following a disciplinary investigation, on September 30th 2024, the complainant was dismissed.  In the fifth paragraph of the letter confirming his dismissal, a director of the company stated:

“You made a false allegation that tried, at the very least, to undermine your manager or impugn his reputation.  The basis of any employment relation (sic) is built on trust and confidence and I have concluded that trust and confidence have been irrevocably broken.  I have therefore decided to terminate your employment.”

Although he was informed of his right to appeal, the complainant did not appeal against the decision to dismiss him and he submitted this complaint to the WRC on October 14th 2024.  In his evidence at the hearing, he said that he started a new job on January 20th 2025.

The facility in Tallaght, where the complainant was based, operated a morning shift from 06.00 until 14.00 and an afternoon shift from 14.00 until 22.00.  The complainant and three colleagues worked on opposite shifts (two on each shift).  Because they were not at the hearing, I will refer to the complainant’s colleagues as “AB,” “CD,” and “EF.”  The four printers reported to the production manager, who I will refer to as “PM.”

Chronology of Events Leading to the Dismissal of the Complainant

The documents submitted for the hearing show that, on August 15th 2024, PM had a meeting with the complainant to put in place arrangements to avoid conflict between him and one of his colleagues, AB.  In an email dated August 20th 2024, in which he summarised the outcome of the meeting on August 15th, PM stated that a checklist had to be completed by each operator at the end of their shift.  The employees on the early shift were to finish at 13.45 and those on the afternoon shift were not to enter the production unit until after that time.  In the email, PM said, “There is no need for any verbal communication” between AB and the complainant. 

The next day, the complainant wrote to PM and told him that he wasn’t satisfied with the way he was dealing with the problem and that he wouldn’t accept his proposed solution.  PM replied and said that the complainant was free to contact the HR department or the managing director if he wasn’t happy with him.  He said that concerns about staff and procedures should be directed to him.

On August 26th, the complainant wrote to the HR manager to make a formal complaint about PM.  He accused him of lying and covering for AB.  He described the procedure introduced by PM to manage the conflict between him and AB as “counter productive and not good for anyone.”  He said that he wasn’t accepting PM’s solution.  On August 30th, the HR manager appointed the financial controller, Mr Tony Sullivan, to conduct an investigation into the complainant’s grievance.  Mr Sullivan attended the hearing and gave evidence about his involvement in this matter.

On September 2nd, Mr Sullivan invited the complainant to a meeting on September 5th, to discuss his complaint about his manager.  Mr Sullivan referred to the company’s grievance procedure and the complainant was invited to be accompanied at the meeting.

On September 3rd, the complainant accused PM of looking through his bag which he had brought onto the production floor and placed beside a machine he was working on.  Following a meeting with the HR manager on September 4th, he was suspended, but he was instructed to attend the meeting scheduled with Mr Sullivan on September 5th. 

It seems that the meeting scheduled for September 5th did not take place, but, the following day, Mr Sullivan wrote to the complainant to invite him to a disciplinary investigation on September 10th.  The notes of that meeting show that the complainant attended on his own and Mr Sullivan was accompanied by the HR manager.  At the meeting, the complainant said that he had a yogurt drink in his bag, although he knew that it isn’t permitted to have food or drink in the production area.  He said that he is sure that his manager “had a quick look into his bag.”  He said that, during the break that day, he made a “throwaway comment” that “someone had grassed him up” and that his manager had gone through his bag.  He said that he realised that this was “a poor comment to make.”  He said that he believes that his comment was “blown out of proportion due to the present difficulties in the printing department.”

The complainant had booked three days’ annual leave from September 11th to the 13th and, on September 16th, his suspension was extended until the 25th.  On September 18th, Mr Sullivan wrote to him and said that he decided that his conduct on September 3rd should be considered at a disciplinary hearing.  A meeting in accordance with the company’s disciplinary procedure was held on September 23rd.  The meeting was hosted by a company director and again, the HR manager was the note-taker.  The note of the meeting shows that the complainant said that, on September 3rd, he had his bag beside the machine he was working on.  The bag contained a glass jar with yogurt.  The director pointed out that personal bags, glass and food are not permitted in the production area and that it is likely that this was the reason the complainant’s manager went around to where the bag was on the floor beside the machine. 

The complainant admitted that he went up to the canteen and told the three employees who were present that his manager was looking into his bag.  He admitted that he shouldn’t have said this, but he said that he was “paranoid with everything going on at the factory at the moment…”  He said that he wanted to discuss things with his manager, and with AB and the managing director, and he wanted to sort things out.

On Monday, September 30th, the complainant attended a follow-up meeting at which he was informed that his employment was terminated with immediate effect.

It is the respondent’s case that the dismissal of the complainant followed a pattern of disruptive behaviour, false accusations and a breakdown of trust.  In July 2024, he was issued with a verbal warning due to unprofessional treatment of AB.  In September, he made a false allegation to colleagues about his manager, PM.  Arising from the cumulative nature of the interpersonal and performance issues, the dismissal of the complainant was considered to be necessary and proportionate.  The dismissal was conducted in accordance with a formal disciplinary procedure and included a right of appeal, which the complainant did not exercise.

Evidence of the Financial Controller, Mr Tony Sullivan

Mr Sullivan said that he has been the company’s financial controller for three years.  He said that he was asked by the HR manager to investigate a grievance submitted by the complainant, about how his line manager proposed to deal with the conflict between the complainant and AB.  That meeting was scheduled for September 5th 2024.  However, on September 3rd, it was reported that the complainant alleged that his line manager, PM, was looking through his bag.  Mr Sullivan said that he was asked to investigate that matter instead.

Mr Sullivan said that he interviewed two of the three people who were in the canteen when the complainant made the allegation about his manager.  The third person sent a written note about his recollection of what occurred.  On September 10th, Mr Sullivan said that he met the complainant to hear his version of what occurred.  The HR manager typed up a note of the meeting and this was sent to the complainant on September 16th. 

Mr Sullivan said that he concluded that the complainant had alleged that his manager had looked through his bag. 

Although I gave the complainant an opportunity to cross-examine Mr Sullivan, he didn’t ask him any questions.  He told him that the reason he complained about his manager in the first instance was because of his inability to deal with AB, who was aggressive towards him.  He said that he told him at the meeting on September 10th that he didn’t accuse his manager of looking through his bag, but that he said that he had “a sneak peek” into his bag.

Evidence of Mr Martin Farrelly, the Company’s HR Advisor

Mr Farrelly said that he has been providing a HR consultancy service to the company since 2022.  The business was sold that year and the director who conducted the disciplinary hearing on September 23rd 2024 left in December 2024. 

Around the end of September 2024, Mr Farrelly said that he was contacted by this director.  He said that he discussed with her the options for dealing with a disciplinary matter which are set out in the company’s handbook.  These include dismissal, a transfer to a different site, demotion or suspension without pay.

Mr Farrelly said that the production facility where the complainant worked in Tallaght was relatively small, and the production manager, the complainant’s line manager, is the most senior person on the site.  He said that it was apparent to the director who conducted the disciplinary hearing that the relationship between the two was severed.

Evidence of the Complainant

In his evidence which I have summarised below, I have avoided repeating most of the offensive remarks the complainant made about his colleagues.  Opening his evidence, the complainant said that, although his letter of dismissal refers to a breakdown of trust, this is not quite the case.  He said that other employees were plotting against him because he was better than them at his job. 

The complainant said that the production manager, PM, was the figurehead.  He said that he started in his job around the end of January 2024.

The complainant said that he had a difficulty with one employee, AB, a press operator who worked on the opposite shift to him.  He said that one of the machines that was in use when he started was dilapidated.  He was shocked that the company was trying to get quality work from that particular machine and he said that he brought his experience to bear and he told the directors what was needed.  He travelled to France and Germany with the former managing director to select a new Heidelberg machine.  In the end, two new machines were purchased which were more computerised than the previous model.  The complainant said that a demonstrator came from Germany to help the production team to set up the machine.  He said that a piece of equipment called a reverse osmosis machine was needed to increase the hardness of the water, but this wasn’t purchased.

The complainant said that, because he knew more than others, he had inadvertently bruised a few egos.  He said that his co-worker, AB, didn’t know how to address the problems that the machine was presenting.  He said that another colleague, CD, “had the hump” because he was out-performing him.  He said that his colleagues were trying to force him to leave or to make a mistake.

The complainant said that he asked for AB to be dismissed because he was aggressive.  He said that he wasn’t happy with how PM was dealing with the situation and he circumvented his authority by contacting the managing director.  He said that he told the managing director that he wanted AB “off the press.”

The complainant said that the management was looking for a way to end the friction on the factory floor.  By September 4th 2024, he said that he was constantly looking over his shoulder.  He was trying to be civil, but AB was being argumentative, saying, “I’ll do it my way.  He said that CD gave the impression that he was a better operator than him and that he knew better.

The complainant described an incident when a gate on the new machine nearly hit a pallet.  He said that there were leaks on the machine and the gears and cylinders were covered in ink.  He said that he asked AB to clean up around the machine and to wash the trays, but he didn’t clean up.  He said that AB and CD were buddies, and he was the outcast because he was good at his job.

It is the complainant’s view that the production manager was manipulated by AB and CD.

Around March 2024, the complainant said that AB told him that he wasn’t speaking to him any longer.  He said that this was because he knew more than AB.  He said that he taught him things that he didn’t know.

I asked the complainant why he felt the need to make a complaint about his manager.  He said that he had a problem with the way that he wasn’t managing the situation with AB.  Around August 20th 2024, he said that he sent an email to the managing director about how PM was not dealing properly with AB, but he said that he got no reply.  He said that this made him feel that there was a lot going on behind his back.  Then he said that he might have got a text message from the managing director telling him that she was dealing with the problem.  When the former managing director departed, the complainant said that he felt isolated.

On September 3rd, he accused PM of looking into his bag.  I reminded the complainant that the manager who conducted the disciplinary hearing decided that PM was not looking into his bag.  The complainant said, “Why was he at the back of my machine?”  He said that PM and another employee were colluding with each other.  He said that he saw PM looking into his bag, where he had a yogurt.  He said that others had bags on the factory floor, but PM wanted to make an issue about him having a bag so that he could get rid of him.

Referring to the arrangement put in place by PM so that he and AB wouldn’t have to communicate, the complainant said that this wasn’t feasible.

Cross-examining of the Complainant

In response to questions from Mr Drumm, the complainant said that he was in the company well before PM.  He said that he had got to know the previous managing director and another director. 

Mr Drumm asked the complainant if, when PM was appointed to the job of production manager, he could have applied for the job.  The complainant replied that he didn’t want the job.  Mr Drumm suggested that, with the purchase of the new Heidelberg machines, there was an opportunity for the complainant to assume a role as a manager.  He replied that he didn’t think there was a management role for him.

Mr Drumm said that, with PM as production manager, four lithographic printers, including the complainant, reported to him.  Mr Drumm said that each of the four was at the same level.  The complainant replied that one colleague, EF, while not belligerent or aggressive, didn’t know anything about the machines.  He said that EF was trying and learn and he helped him and EF was grateful. 

Mr Drumm suggested that the complainant’s opinion was that his colleagues were not as competent as him.  The complainant replied that, on paper, they were the same grade, but not in reality.  He said that, although it wasn’t official, he was more or less the senior printer.

When Mr Drumm asked the complainant what PM should have done differently, he said that he had already suggested that AB should be dismissed.  He believes that this process had actually started, because the company had advertised for a lithographic printer.  That process stopped when PM discovered that he had asked the managing director to dismiss AB.  He said that PM prevented AB from being dismissed and then the whole situation changed.  He said that the managing director never came back to him when he asked for AB to be dismissed.  He said that he thinks he sent the managing director a text message and she replied saying that she was leaving it to PM to decide.

Mr Drumm asked the complainant why he didn’t appeal against the decision to dismiss him.  He replied that he wasn’t going to appeal something that was a foregone conclusion.  He said that, if he was gone, there would be no friction on the factory floor and no grievance by him against PM.

In response to Mr Drumm’s suggestion that the complainant was surprised when, although he went over PM’s head to the managing director, she didn’t involve him in solving the problem.  The complainant replied that the managing director and PM were communicating about things that were relevant to him.  He said that he got the impression that his position was becoming untenable.

In March 2024, when AB said that he wouldn’t speak to him, the complainant said that things changed.  He said that he complied with this, but he felt that it was favouring AB.  He said that he called for AB to be dismissed because he didn’t speak to him in a rational manner.  When Mr Drumm said that AB and CD might have had a difficulty with how he spoke to them, he said, “if I come across as cocky, it’s because I know what I do.  They don’t do their job as effectively as I do.”  He went on to say that he’s a bit faster at his job because he keeps himself fit and he out-performed.

The Legal Framework

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) provides that:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal, unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

A dismissal is therefore presumed to be unfair, until the employer establishes that there were substantial grounds justifying it. 

Section 6(4)(b) of the Act provides that,

“…the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from …the conduct of the employee.”

It is the respondent’s case that the complainant was dismissed because, on September 3rd 2024, when he was speaking to three colleagues in the canteen, he claimed that his manager had looked into his bag.  The manager who handled the disciplinary hearing concluded that the complainant had made a false allegation with the intention of undermining his manager or impugning his reputation.    She concluded that the company had lost trust in the complainant and she decided to terminate his employment.

Was the Decision to Dismiss Reasonable and in Proportion to the Conduct?

More than forty years ago, in the case at the former Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) of Bunyan v UDT (Ireland) Limited, [1982] IRLM 404, the Tribunal held that the fairness or otherwise of an employer’s decision to impose the most serious sanction of dismissal must be judged by an objective test:

“…the fairness of unfairness of the dismissal is to be judged by the objective standard of the way in which a reasonable employer in those circumstances in that line of business would have behaved.  The Tribunal therefore does not decide the question whether or not on the evidence before it, the employee should be dismissed.  The decision to dismiss has been taken and our function is to test such decision against what we consider the reasonable employer would have done and/or concluded.”

My role therefore, as the adjudicator and the successor to the EAT, is to determine if it was reasonable for the respondent to conclude that, arising from his conduct on September 3rd 2024, trust in the complainant had been so irrevocably damaged, that he couldn’t be permitted to remain in their employment any longer.

The notes of the initial investigation meeting that the complainant attended with Tony Sullivan on September 10th 2024, show that the complainant told Mr Sullivan that, on September 3rd, he was sure that PM had a quick look into his bag.  He said that there was no physical disturbance of his bag.  At breaktime in the canteen, the complainant said that he “made a throwaway comment that someone had grassed him up.”  He said that he didn’t mention who the “someone” was but he said that PM had gone through his bag.

From the evidence of the complainant, it was apparent that he had no respect for PM, his line manager, who he claimed was “colluding with AB.”  On August 26th 2024, he made a complaint to the managing director about how PM was dealing with the conflict between him and AB.  He said that he didn’t agree with PM’s efforts to restrict the contact they had with each other and he said that he asked for AB to be dismissed.

Whatever about the views any of us might have about our colleagues, it is unusual, to say the least, for a co-worker to approach a managing director to recommend the dismissal of another employee.  Most people manage their colleagues’ deficits by supporting or ignoring them, but this simple strategy was alien to the complainant. 

When he told his colleagues in the canteen that “someone had grassed him up,” and that PM had looked in his bag, this was an act of complete disrespect.  The complainant said that his bag wasn’t interfered with and, if PM looked into it, he was entitled to do so, because the bag shouldn’t have been on the production floor.  To suggest that PM had looked into his bag with the intention of getting him into trouble was a breach of trust that, in my view, could not be remedied.

I have reached this conclusion because, during his evidence, I observed that the complainant had little appreciation of the effect of his remark on his manager.  He remained disrespectful, repeating his accusation that PM didn’t properly manage his staff. 

The question for me is, “What would another reasonable employer have done in a similar situation?”  It is my view that the complainant’s relationship with his manager and his co-workers was entirely dysfunctional, and that this dysfunction was caused by him, due to his failure to behave in a supportive manner, and to manage the relationships in his workplace constructively and with a degree of humility.  It is my view that the incident on September 3rd 2024 was the last straw for the respondent, and I am satisfied that most employers faced with the same conduct would have concluded that he should be dismissed.

Was the Process Fair?

Having reviewed the notes of the investigation meeting and the disciplinary outcome meeting that were submitted in evidence, I find that the complainant represented himself well and had an opportunity to argue against his employer’s concerns that his behaviour merited a serious sanction such as dismissal.  He was offered the opportunity to be accompanied by a colleague, which he declined.  I am satisfied that the complainant was dismissed at the end of a procedure that was conducted fairly and without bias.

The complainant’s failure to appeal against his dismissal in accordance with the company’s disciplinary procedure is detrimental to his claim now.  In this regard, I refer to the decision of the EAT in Pungor v MBCC Foods Limited UD 584/2015.  Finding that the dismissal of Ms Pungor was not unfair, the EAT at the time considered that,

“…the employee had an obligation to exhaust the internal disciplinary procedure prior to seeking to enforce her rights externally.  She has not satisfied her obligation and did not adduce any evidence that might justify her decision not to exhaust the internal process.”

In advance of submitting his complaint to the WRC, the complainant had an obligation to use the company’s appeal procedure to argue against his dismissal.  I agree with his position that an appeal may not have helped him, but his failure to conclude the process to its end is evidence of his disrespect for standard workplace procedures and for the resources of the WRC.

Conclusion

Each case where misconduct is at issue turns on its own facts and I have reached my conclusion here based on the evidence presented to me at the hearing.  I note with authority the findings in the case of Samuel J Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Limited, [1997] IEHC 137.  Here, Mr Justice Flood held that, in reaching a decision to dismiss,

“The decision of the deciding authority should be based on the balance of probabilities flowing from the factual evidence and in light of the explanation offered.”

It is apparent that the explanation offered by the complainant regarding his conduct on September 3rd 2024 was not sufficient to persuade his employer that their trust in him was severed beyond repair.

I am satisfied that the employer in this case has taken all the facts into consideration, including what Mr Justice Flood referred to as the “gravity of the complaint and the effect of dismissal” on the complainant, and it is my view that, in the same circumstances, any reasonable employer would have done the same thing.  In conclusion therefore, I find that the dismissal of the complainant was not unfair.

I have concluded that the decision of the respondent to dismiss the complainant in this case was reasonable and proportionate and I also find that no unfairness arose from the procedure that ended with his dismissal.  On this basis, I have decided that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.

Dismissal, conflict in the workplace, failure to appeal