ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057509
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Geard Cleary | Tufloo Toilet Rentals Limited |
Representatives | James Doran (BL) instructed by Aidan T Stapleton Solicitors | Self-represented (Tom Costello) |
Complaint(s):
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-00069954-001 | 12/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00070327-001 | 27/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00070327-002 | 27/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070327-004 | 27/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070327-005 | 27/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00070327-006 | 27/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, the one witnesses was advised of the penalty for perjury and witnesses made an affirmationto be truthful with the Commission.
In attendance for the Complainant were Mr Cleary (Complainant), Mr Doran (BL) and Mr Sweeney (Solicitor).
The Respondent Tufloo was represented by Mr Tom Costello who gave evidence under affirmation and was cross-examined. No other witnesses were produced.
In coming to my decision, I have fully considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, and the written and oral submissions on behalf of the parties.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals. And only broad reasons need be given…”.
Background:
The Complainant employment ended on 30/09/2024 with the dismissal of the Worker. It is the Worker case that he has been dismissed without recourse to procedure and has not benefited from constitutional justice and has not been provided with a written statement of terms and conditions . The Complainant found a new position on the 25/11/24 a period of 8 weeks |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on or about 21 July 2021. His duties included the delivery, collection, and cleaning of units. He received weekly remuneration of €850 gross (€787.58 net). Throughout his employment, the Complainant was not provided with a written statement of terms and conditions, an employee handbook, or details of grievance and disciplinary procedures, despite repeated requests. On or about 30 September 2024, the Complainant attended a meeting with the Managing Director without prior notice or explanation of its purpose. The Complainant asserts that the meeting had a predetermined outcome and resulted in his dismissal. He contends that the dismissal was unfair and conducted in breach of fair procedures, natural justice, and the Workplace Relations Commission Code of Practice. The Complainant seeks redress under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. He also references claims under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 which are all withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing. The Complainant has since secured alternative employment effective 25 November 2024. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s claims and states that the dismissal was due to repeated misconduct. In September 2024, the Complainant allegedly made unauthorised stops, left the company vehicle unattended, and drove off with an unidentified person. When questioned, the Complainant said he joined a friend to complete deliveries. A verbal warning was issued following this and prior informal discussions about aggressive behaviour toward colleagues and customers. Further incidents were reported:
The Respondent states these actions raised concerns about possible illegal activity and, due to lack of satisfactory explanation, led to dismissal. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant withdrew complaints:
CA-00070327-003 Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00070327-004 section 27 Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00070327-005 section 27 Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00070327-006 section 27 Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
This left on the following complaints to be disposed of:
CA-00070327-001 section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00070327-002 section 7 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
CA-00070327-002 section 7 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
For convenience I will deal with CA-00070327-002 section 7 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 first. It is a requirement under statute that these terms be provided to an employee. The Respondent admits that this is not the case and was keen to emphasise that the Complainant had never asked for them and if he had he would have gotten them.
It was clear to me that the Respondent understood this wouldn’t excuse the oversight and I can only find this complaint well-founded.
I direct that the Respondent pay the Complainant the equivalent of one week’s gross salary (€850.00) in compensation for the breach.
CA-00070327-001 section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977
Turning to the unfair dismissal complaint, the facts of the dismissal are not contested, but the Respondent asserts the dismissal was justified and offered his sworn evidence on this. The Respondent made assertions during their evidence and on being cross-examination to the effect that the Complainant was no longer trustworthy and it was his suspicion that he was placing the Respondent business at risk through some undisclosed unauthorised activity. He also admitted that he had not made an investigation and followed a recognised procedure.
The Complainant did not go into evidence, with the burden placed on the Respondent under the terms of the Act. The Complainant did not contest the assertions of the Respondent in sworn evidence; however, the Complainant is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Under cross-examination by the Complainant Barrister, it became clear that the Respondent did not investigate in line with the tenets of natural justice, that he had only suspicions and assumptions but no clearly formulated evidence that he could have relied upon.
It is clear to me that the Respondent had genuinely held concerns and access to data to form those suspicions and if he had followed some procedures he could have defended against the claim. However, in a situation where he had no procedures in he has no defence.
The Respondent set out that he was a good employer, and I would not doubt that, however, he does not have the required HR policies and procedures in place as is required and necessitated for his defence of these types of claims. I have some sympathy for the Respondent position where compliance is complicated and costly, but they are an absolute necessity.
The Respondent did set out the behaviours of the Complainant in being challenged as to his absences and diversions and his response to complaints from customers and to this end the Complainant has not denied that he has acted poorly whilst in the employ of the Respondent.
However, Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts provides that,
“…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.”
I can only find that there was no fair process followed, despite the circumstances of the behaviour of the Complainant and that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded.
In relation to redress, Section 7(1) empowers me to order re-instatement, re-engagement or a payment of compensation to be made to a successful Complainant under the Act. Given that neither party wished for the employment relation to recommence, and mutual trust is in non-existent, compensation is the most appropriate form of redress in this circumstance.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I note that section 7(2)(f) of the Acts allow a consideration of the “extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal.” In this respect, it is clearly apparent that the Complainant has behaved poorly, and he has not challenged the assertions of the Respondent in this regard. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that the Complainant has contributed to his own dismissal, albeit that dismissal being unfair.
I note the Complainant’s attempts to mitigate his losses. In this regard, the Complainant submitted that he secured full-time alternative employment approximately six weeks following his dismissal.
Having regard to the Complainant actions that led to his dismissal I direct that he be paid the equivalent of four weeks’ gross (€3400.00) salary in compensation in addition to the one weeks salary under CA-00070327. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above, I have decided that CA-00070327-002 section 7 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the equivalent of one week’s gross salary (€850.00) in compensation for the breach.
I have decided that CA-00070327-001 section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 Is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the equivalent of four weeks’ gross (€3400.00) salary in compensation. For the avoidance of all doubt the combined total of compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Complainant is €4250.00. |
Dated: 5th January 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore
Key Words:
|