Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Mr Jay Power Fórsa

Self-Represented

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 - 00006310

05/02/2026

This matter came before the WRC dated 05/02/2026 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The specific complaint falls under a trade dispute that the Worker would like investigated.  The aforesaid dispute was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 03/07/2026. 

The background to this dispute relates to a disciplinary hearing and the imposition of a sanction. 

The Worker works 39 hours per week for which he is paid €1700 gross fortnightly.

It is the Worker’s claim that there were ‘serious flaws in the procedural element and in the flow line of sanction which is disproportionate’ as set out in his WRC complaint form. 

The Employer maintains the process was at all times carried out in compliance with the disciplinary policy of the Employer and adhered to the principles of natural justice and fairness. 

Both parties provided helpful written submissions including supporting documentation prior to the hearing for which I am grateful.   

Overview of written submission

On Thursday, 2nd October 2025, at approximately 12:30 p.m., a unfortunate accident occurred in [redacted].  For a very considerable period of time staff and the Worker had been dealing with blocked drains which were leading to noxious odours and foul-smelling drains.

The Worker tried to resolve the situation, trying maintenance & unblocking works to clear the drains as well as ringing the Employer drainage division to send a “Choke car” which deals with heavy blockages.

In using his initiative to fix the drains the Worker was supplied with a small amount of “drain unblocker” from a worker in a separate employer adjacent to his place of employment. 

This “drain unblocker” was poured into a “coca cola” bottle for the Worker’s private use at his home/private residence. The bottle was then placed in the Worker’s personal bag and he went into the workplace.

Due to the busy nature of the workplace and staff shortages on the day the Worker had to address issues immediately on entering the building and placed in his bag in a communal area of the centre, rather than his staff locker which is at the far end of the facility and through the sports hall, which was in use. Two hours later the Worker was made aware that there was a chemical smell coming from the communal area, that there seemed to be a chemical spill of some kind which had occurred and a young adult may have come into contact with the chemical.

When the Worker investigated the matter it became apparent that the “drain unblocker” had leaked through the bottle and bag and had inadvertently come into contact with the young persons clothes and skin.

The Worker secured the bag, secured & cleaned the area, made the relevant line manager aware of what had occurred, made sure that the child was okay and arranging for contact to be made with the young persons parents.  The Worker’s primary concern throughout this whole episode was the safe well being of the child being a father of 6 children himself.  The Worker continued to full his duties in the recreation centre.  Following correspondence from the Employer a fact finding exercise and investigation was initiated.  The Worker was not placed on paid suspension and continued to carry out his role and duties while the fact finding exercise was on-going. 

The Worker was advised by letter that he was to attend for disciplinary hearing interview on Wednesday 10th December [redacted].  The Worker continued to fulfil his role and duties. 

At this meeting Forsa and the Worker outlined that:

• This was a very unfortunate incident

 • Absolutely no malice was intended

• The Worker’s dedication to the role

• The Worker’s unblemished service record

• The Worker’s complete sympathies with the young person.

It is submitted a letter of disciplinary sanction issued and the Worker and his representative found the sanction extremely harsh and in line with the Employer appeals process the decision was appealed outlining “the basis and rational for the appeal is that the sanction being imposed on the Worker is overly severe and excessively punitive.”

While the sanctions were amended it was still felt that the sanctions being imposed were unjustly harsh and more specifically that a two week unpaid suspension was being imposed with a condition that local management arrange same to suit operational requirements.  It is the view of Forsa and the Worker that the two week unpaid suspension services no purpose but to financially penalise the Worker, impose punitive hardships and is out of sync with natural justice whence the Worker had continued work diligently for near on 4 months since the incident.

The Worker seeks a recommendation that (1) the two weeks wages lost by the Worker through an unjust suspension are returned and (2) that the final written warning is downgraded. 

The Worker’s representative at hearing submits there was no malice intended and the Worker inadvertently left the bag on the table.  The Worker’s representative submits that sanction should be to correct behaviours and that training should be provided. 

The Worker at hearing submits three staff had rang in sick that morning and there was so much going on; he had walked up to the chemical store but he was so busy; the phone was ringing; he was trying to clean the building and clearly it was his mistake a 110%.  The Worker submits he made a mistake a human error.   

The Worker’s representative at hearing clarifies that what is in issue / dispute is the 2 weeks’ unpaid suspension.  Upon enquiry the Worker’s representative confirms there were no procedural flaws but he does consider the fact find to be a bit of a grey area that the Worker’s representative is not happy with.    

It is confirmed the procedural aspect is not being called into question and this dispute harks back to an unjust sanction. 

Overview of written submission

On 2nd October 2025 it was alleged that the Worker was involved in an incident while at work in his workplace whereby a member of the public, who was a minor, suffered injuries having come into contact with a corrosive chemical substance.  The substance had been brought on to the premises by the Worker for personal use and was not correctly stored leading to the injury to the service user.

On the day in question the minor’s mother attended the Worker’s workplace to highlight concerns as her child had returned home with scorch marks on her clothing and what appeared to be a burn like mark on her leg.  The Worker as the Duty Manager completed an incident report form regarding same.

On 17th October the Employer’s legal department received a Solicitor’s letter  on behalf of the minor of the intention to instigate proceedings against the Employer in relation to the alleged incident.  On foot of this Local Management sought information from the relevant employees who were present on the day. Following this initial probe a decision was made to formally investigate the matter.  Local Management met individually with the staff who were present on the day namely to ascertain the events that lead to the incident.  

Upon the conclusion of this investigation the SEO reviewed same and wrote to the Human Resources Department on 1st December 2025 stating that they believed the incident may cross the threshold of serious/gross misconduct and consequently referred the matter to Human Resources Department for consideration. 

The Worker was subsequently requested to attend for interview in the Human Resources Department on 11th December 2025.  Following interview the Human Resources Department wrote to the Worker on 12th December 2025 informing him of the outcome of the disciplinary sanction being imposed of a Final Written Warning and 1 month suspension without pay.

The Worker was informed of his right to appeal this decision.  The Worker’s Trade Union Representative lodged an appeal of the decision to the Executive Manager Human Resources Department by email dated 20th December 2025 stating that ‘the sanction being imposed is overly severe & excessively punitive’.

By way of letter dated 23rd December 2025 the Worker was requested to attend an appeal interview on 14th January 2026. 

Following this appeal hearing the Worker was informed of the outcome of same by letter dated 16th January 2026 (Appendix 10) whereby the Final Written Warning was upheld with the suspension without pay being reduced to 2 consecutive weeks.

The Employer believes that the Worker breached a number of examples of serious misconduct as set out in the Employer’s Disciplinary Policy in respect of endangering himself, his work colleagues or service users through his actions.  The Employer’s Disciplinary Policy outlines acts that may constitute serious misconduct;

·        Deliberate, reckless or serious breaches of employee’s duties under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act;

·        Negligence or carelessness which causes, or might cause unacceptable loss, damage or injury to any person or property; and

·        Conduct that places work colleagues in danger.

It is the position of the Employer that the decision to issue a disciplinary sanction and the severity of the sanction imposed against the Worker was both reasonable and justified. 

It should be noted that the Worker knowingly brought to and stored hazardous material in the workplace in a manner that was not safe and that the direct result of these actions caused the injury to the service user and exposed the Employer to liability in relation to the injuries suffered by that service user. 

The Employer also argues strongly that the sanction imposed was appropriate and reasonable having considered the range of sanctions that would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.  The process was at all times carried out in compliance with the disciplinary policy of the Employer and adhered to the principles of natural justice and fairness. As such it was carried out in a manner that upheld the Worker’s right to know the case against him, right to access all relevant information, right to be heard, challenge the allegations against him and explain his position.  The Worker’s case was afforded due consideration, his right to representation was preserved at all times and the right to appeal was provided for. It is on this basis that the Employer respectfully requests that the Adjudicator finds that the complaint is without merit.

The Employer at hearing maintains the fact the Worker remained in work during the process is immaterial; this was a once off unique and isolated incident that did not require a suspension during investigation.  The incident was of a serious nature through negligence, carelessness or recklessness and the incident was a direct result of the Worker’s actions but it was a once off.  It is submitted it was a reasonable sanction to apply given the liability the Employer was subsequently exposed to. 

The Employer submits the disciplinary process was conducted in line with the policy and the Worker clearly knew the product belonged in the chemical store by way of response to the Worker’s representative suggestion regarding training needing to be provided. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.   The consideration of a trade dispute and any recommendation thereto is informed and guided by previous decisions of the Labour Court as they apply to a trade dispute under the Industrial Relations Act.

Having listened to both parties in this dispute it quickly became apparent that even though there was at the very least a gap of mutual understanding on certain matters, there was a commendable level of willingness to engage on both sides.  I note during the time provided to the parties at hearing to engage in discussions there was clarification provided to the Worker on certain matters of concern which is commended. 

Attention was drawn to the relatively informal voluntary nature of the process and to my role in attempting to resolve a dispute and recommend a way forward that is fair and reasonable to both parties and to facilitate the parties in reaching a way forward particularly in circumstances where the employment relationship continues. 

At the outset in considering this matter, I am satisfied that the Employer was obliged to investigate a complaint made by a member of the public / service user.  I accept this gave rise to a matter of serious concern requiring immediate investigation.    

I explained my role as that of evaluating and establishing if the internal procedures used by the Employer conformed to the generally accepted standards of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in such cases and assess whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. 146 of 2000.  I am satisfied the Disciplinary Procedures are in compliance with same.  I am satisfied the Worker was treated fairly by the Employer in the application of the Disciplinary procedure and in the reasons for which the procedure was invoked when I take all the circumstances leading up to this dispute into account. 

I note and I have carefully considered the Worker’s representative expression of disquiet in regard to the fact find which he described as a ‘grey area.’

I am satisfied there was a proper separation of the Investigatory, the Disciplinary and the Appeal procedure in terms of those appointed to the roles in the different stages of the process.   

The alleged deficiencies in the fact find were not expanded upon by the Worker representative other than to say it was a grey area.  I have reviewed all the supporting documentation and I am satisfied that procedural deficiencies, if indeed there were any, were not of sufficient magnitude to imperil a fair hearing.  I am satisfied a central consideration to a fair process is whether or not any purported breach is likely is likely to jeopardise a fair hearing or a fair result.   I do not find the Employer acted outside the bounds of fair procedure.   

The Labour Court decision of Bord Gais Eireann v. A Worker [AD1377] sets out my remit in relation to disputes regarding internal investigations as follows:

“It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the Company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.”

I note also the determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in the case of Murphy v College Freight Ltd (UD867/2007) where the EAT held that a disciplinary procedure does not need to be “a counsel of perfection” but rather “they must be fair.”

I am satisfied the Disciplinary procedure was conducted in a fair manner.  

I note the Worker was fully represented by his Trade Union throughout the disciplinary process and he was fully represented in the subsequent appeal.  I am satisfied the disciplinary procedure was clear and robust and is compliant with S.I. No. 674/2020 Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work).

Having considered all of the circumstances of the dispute, I accept the Employer’s position that the incident was of a serious nature and that the sanction applied was a reasonable sanction to apply. 

I note the Worker appealed and the month unpaid suspension was reduced to two weeks which can only be considered a fair and reasonable outcome against the backdrop of the circumstances of this dispute.  

For the reasons set out above I am unable to find merit in this dispute.