Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A Transport Business

Representatives

None

 None

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 – 00004740

16/07/2025

The Worker commenced employment in February 2025.  He was dismissed 5 months later for allegedly smoking cannabis in his work vehicle.  The Employer told the hearing it had no option but to dismiss the Worker as it could not tolerate such behaviour.

The Worker outlined he was dismissed following an accusation that there was a smell of cannabis in his work vehicle and for tardiness and customer complaints.  He was given no forewarning of the meeting at which he was dismissed or given time to prepare for same or permitted to bring a representative.  He contends he was denied fair procedures.  Further, he was given no prior warnings in relation to time keeping and customer concerns. 

The Worker submitted that this was the second time he was falsely accused of wrongdoing.  Some weeks previously the Worker was on certified sick leave.  On his return to work he was accused of having been at the pub whilst on sick leave as his work vehicle had been spotted parked outside.  It later transpired that this was in fact another employee and not the Worker.  He received no apology for the false accusation.  The Worker outlined that he does not consume alcohol or take drugs and that he never made an admission to management that he smokes cannabis.

A manager smelt cannabis in the Worker’s vehicle.  Another manager went out to the vehicle and confirmed that he could also smell cannabis.  The Worker was immediately called into a meeting and was dismissed following an admission of smoking cannabis.  The Employer could not risk the Worker driving a vehicle.  The Worker had previously been accused of drinking when he was on sick leave, but the Manager apologised to the Worker when it discovered to have been another worker.

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

This was not the first time the Worker was accused of misconduct.  It transpired the first accusation was false.  This allegation of misconduct, namely, smoking cannabis whilst operating a company van, was put to the Worker following two manager’s suspicion of same.  The Worker was dismissed immediately following an alleged admission by the Worker of wrongdoing.  The letter of dismissal was issued a week later at the request of the Worker.  The reasons given for the dismissal included two further grounds, namely, repeated tardiness and customer complaints. 

I accept the Worker’s submission that his dismissal lacked fair procedure.  I am satisfied that in reaching the decision to terminate the Worker’s employment the Employer failed to observe the terms of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 146/2000).

The Labour Court has repeatedly asserted that employers are obliged to act fairly before terminating a worker’s employment and they are not relieved of that obligation because the worker has less than one years’ service.   As noted by the Labour Court in Hamilton Insurance Dac v. A Worker (LCR22710), whenever a worker is at risk of the loss of his or her job, it is incumbent on the employer to make the worker aware of the situation and of the reasons, and to follow fair procedures before dismissing the worker.   

I recommend the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €3,500 in full and final settlement of this trade dispute. 

Dismissal. Non-adherence to fair procedure.