Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alan  Daniels

Counter Products Marketing (Ireland) Limited trading as CPM Ireland

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00073639-001

21/07/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 18th January 2016. He was employed by the Respondent as a territory manager assigned to service one of the Respondent’s clients.

On 26 January 2025, during Storm Éowyn, the Complainant attended an EV charging station while off duty but driving a company-branded vehicle. An interaction occurred between the Complainant and a member of the public which subsequently resulted in a complaint being made to An Garda Síochána and to the Respondent’s client.

The Respondent commenced a disciplinary process arising from that complaint. Following an investigation, disciplinary review and appeal process, the Respondent summarily dismissed the Complainant on 20 February 2025 for alleged gross misconduct. The Complainant disputes the allegations and contends that his dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.

The Complainant gave evidence that on the 26 January 2025 he attended an EV charging station due to a loss of electricity at his home during severe weather conditions. He stated that unusually long queues had formed at the charging station due to the national emergency circumstances. He was off duty at the time and was accompanied by his daughter.

The Complainant accepted that an interaction occurred with a member of the public but disputed the Respondent’s characterisation of the incident and denied engaging in misconduct. The Complainant stated that he reported the incident to his line manager the following day.

The Complainant further submitted that the allegations made against him were inconsistent and unsupported by independent evidence. He stated that An Garda Síochána investigated the complaint and did not pursue any action against him. He argued that the Respondent placed excessive reliance on the allegations of a third party without conducting a sufficiently balanced or objective investigation. The Complainant also contended that the incident occurred while he was off duty and that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances.

The Complainant emphasised that the individuals responsible for conducting the investigation, making the disciplinary decision and determining the appeal did not attend the hearing, and this prevented him from properly challenging the findings reached during the disciplinary process.

The Complainant stated that at the date of dismissal his net weekly earnings were approximately €520. He detailed the efforts he made to find alternative employment following his dismissal.  He remained unemployed for a period of approximately six weeks and thereafter, he was engaged in temporary employment at a level of remuneration broadly equivalent to his earnings with the Respondent, before securing permanent employment at a lower rate of pay from July 2025. In his current role his net weekly earnings are approximately €427. The Complainant had approximately nine years’ service with the Respondent and his current employment does not provide the same level of job security.

The Respondent submitted that it received a complaint from its client relating to the Complainant’s behaviour towards a member of the public. The Respondent stated that the complaint alleged conduct which it considered inappropriate and capable of damaging its reputation and that of its client. The Respondent asserted that such conduct constituted a breach of company policy, contractual standards of behaviour and company values.

The Respondent conducted a disciplinary process which included an investigation meeting, disciplinary review and appeal. The Respondent maintained that the dismissal was justified and proportionate and that fair procedures were followed throughout the process.

The Respondent was represented at hearing by two members of its Human Resources department. The investigator, the disciplinary decision maker and the appeal decision maker did not attend the hearing.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence presented at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 (as amended) (“the 1977 Act”) provides that a dismissal is deemed to be unfair unless there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(4)(b) of the 1977 Act provides that conduct may constitute such grounds.

In determining whether a dismissal is justified, I am required, pursuant to section 6(7) of the 1977 Act, to have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the employer in relation to the dismissal and to assess whether the employer acted reasonably in all of the circumstances in treating the conduct relied upon as sufficient to justify dismissal.

A central feature of this case is the absence of direct evidence from the Respondent concerning the alleged misconduct itself.

While the Respondent relied upon a complaint received from its client, the individual who conducted the disciplinary investigation did not attend the hearing, nor did the disciplinary decision maker or the appeal decision maker. The Respondent was represented by two members of its Human Resources department, who confirmed that their role was limited to receiving the complaint from the client and participating in aspects of the internal process. Neither witness was involved in making the substantive disciplinary findings.

In circumstances where serious allegations of misconduct are relied upon to justify summary dismissal, it is expected that those who investigated the matter and reached findings would be available to give evidence and to be cross-examined. The absence of such witnesses limits the weight that can be attached to the Respondent’s account of events.

Where an employer relies upon the outcome of an internal investigation, the evidential basis for that investigation must be capable of scrutiny. Where primary decision makers are not available to give evidence, it may not be possible to establish that conclusions were reached on reasonable grounds or following fair procedures.

Having regard to the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient reliable evidence before me to make definitive findings as to the alleged misconduct. In those circumstances, the question for determination is whether the Respondent has demonstrated that it had reasonable grounds for its conclusions and that those conclusions were reached following fair procedures.

While employers are entitled to rely upon third party complaints, such reliance must be grounded in a fair, objective and balanced investigation. Having considered the evidence, I note that the allegations made to the Respondent by the third party differed from those made by her to An Garda Síochána. I further note that no direct witness evidence was presented at the hearing to support the allegations and that the Garda investigation resulted in no further action. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Respondent adequately tested the reliability or consistency of the complaint before reaching findings of gross misconduct.

The incident occurred during a national emergency weather event while the Complainant was off duty. The Complainant had also recently undergone significant surgery affecting his mobility. Dismissal for gross misconduct requires conduct of such seriousness that it fundamentally undermines the employment relationship and dismissal must fall within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. Having considered all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the Respondent demonstrated that the Complainant’s conduct reached the threshold required to justify summary dismissal.

The evidence demonstrates that the Complainant had a strong employment record. The Respondent did not demonstrate that lesser sanctions were meaningfully considered. Dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct alleged. Having regard to the oral evidence of the parties, I find that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances.

Fair procedures require that an employee be the subject of a proper investigation, that decisions be made objectively and that the employee be afforded a genuine opportunity to challenge the evidence relied upon. Having considered the entirety of the disciplinary process, I find that the Respondent failed to meet these standards. The cumulative effect of the procedural deficiencies identified above renders the dismissal unfair.

Having carefully considered the oral evidence, documentary submissions and the manner in which evidence was presented, I found the Complainant to be a credible and consistent witness. His evidence regarding the interaction remained consistent throughout the investigation process and during the hearing, and he rejected the Respondent’s characterisation of the incident.

By contrast, the Respondent’s case relied predominantly on documentary evidence. The absence of the investigator, disciplinary decision maker and appeal decision maker significantly limited the evidential weight that could be attached to the Respondent’s case. The Respondent was unable to explain how credibility determinations were reached or how conflicting evidence was assessed. I also note that the allegations made by the member of the public were inconsistent across different accounts and were not supported by direct evidence at hearing. In circumstances where credibility was central to the dismissal decision, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant.

Having regard to all of the evidence before me, I find that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the Complainant. I further find that the disciplinary process was procedurally flawed and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent within the meaning of the 1977 Act.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, I decide that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Respondent. By way of redress the Complainant sought compensation.

In determining the appropriate level of compensation, I have considered the Complainant’s financial loss, his efforts to mitigate that loss and the circumstances of the dismissal. The Complainant remained unemployed for a period of approximately six weeks. Thereafter, he engaged in temporary employment at a level of remuneration broadly equivalent to his earnings with the Respondent, before securing permanent employment at a lower rate of pay from July 2025.

I found the Complainant to be an honest witness and his evidence regarding his loss of earnings to be credible. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate his ongoing loss, in all the circumstances of the instant case, have been reasonable. I have also taken into account that the Complainant continues to sustain a reduction in his weekly earnings and that such loss is likely to persist for a period of time into the future.

Having regard to the evidence presented, including the Complainant’s period of unemployment and the reduction in his ongoing earnings, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €12,500. I am satisfied that this amount is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.