ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation

on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00001982

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard

Date of Hearing:  11/08/2025

Procedure:

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’) pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on 15th November 2023.  There was no objection by the Employer to the WRC investigating this dispute.  Following delegation to me by the Director General, I inquired into this dispute and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any relevant evidence.  The Worker was represented by SIPTU.  The Employer was represented by Byrne Wallace Shields LLP.  Both Parties made extensive submissions and all relevant documentation pertaining to the Worker’s employment was furnished.  This dispute was adjourned for a period to enable the Worker to refer a complaint of unfair dismissal to the WRC without compromising same by having this dispute concluded first pursuant to Section 8(10(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended).  A complaint of constructive dismissal was subsequently referred to the WRC and withdrawn.  The Employer also sought a facility for this Adjudication Officer to view a relevant video-clip.  The hearing proceeded on 11th August 2025 in Lansdowne House.  Section 13(8) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides that hearings shall be held in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the Parties within this recommendation should not be published.  I have also abridged the details of the particular facts to avoid identifying the Parties.

Background:

This dispute arose from the demotion of the Worker with a final 12-month written warning for misconduct whilst in the Employer’s employment.  The Worker had been suspended on pay and following investigation and disciplinary processes, it was found that he had filmed a workplace incident which was subsequently published online bringing the Employer into disrepute.  The Worker contended that he had suffered a loss of status and circa €3000 in earnings as a consequence.  Since referral, he had resigned following his suspension on pay for a separate disciplinary matter but still wished to pursue this dispute.  He sought compensation and/or reinstatement.  This Adjudication Officer agreed to review the process giving rise to his demotion in accordance with the standards set out in caselaw and S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) to determine whether the Employer had acted reasonably in the particular circumstances.  This entailed reviewing all of the materials before the decision-makers (Investigator, Disciplinary Officer and Appeals Officer) and hearing from each of them.  The Worker’s Representative was afforded an opportunity to question each of the decision-makers.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker had no recollection of the workplace incident in question and maintained that he had not filmed same.  Extensive submissions were ably made by the Worker’s Representative, contending that the investigation and disciplinary processes were unfair.  In particular, it was submitted that the Worker had not been furnished with full particulars before the investigation hearing and there was insufficient evidence to support the finding.  Additionally, CCTV of the incident had been overwritten by the time it came to light.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer had adhered to its Policy agreed with SIPTU in relation to the investigation and disciplinary processes leading to the Worker’s demotion for “Acting or behaving in a manner that brought the company into disrepute by recording an interaction that was later shared online.”  The finding that only the Worker could have filmed the workplace incident based upon employment records, evidence of two witnesses (one of whom was independent) and the video-clip was one that was reasonably open for the Employer to make.  The Worker did not assist his position by failing to provide emails pertinent to the investigation.  The Employer had acted with restraint by demoting the Worker when dismissal would have been an option.  Accordingly, there was no basis for a recommendation of compensation or reinstatement of the Worker.

Findings and Conclusions:

Having heard from all of the decision-makers concerned, reviewed the evidence before them including the video-clip in question and considered the submissions made on behalf of both Parties, I am satisfied that the investigation and disciplinary processes were conducted in accordance with fair procedures, the Employer’s Policy agreed with SIPTU and met the standards set out in caselaw and S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures).  In particular, the decision-makers were all appointed in accordance with the Policy and the Worker was furnished with particulars and heard at all stages of the process.  I am satisfied that it was reasonably open to the decision-makers to conclude that the Worker had filmed the workplace incident on the balance of probabilities based upon the evidence adduced.  As the recording was covert, I am further satisfied that CCTV footage of the incident overwritten by the time the video-clip was published would not have materially assisted.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to this dispute.  For the aforesaid reasons, I recommend no further action by the Parties in relation to this dispute.

Dated:   07-01-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Aideen Collard