Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ronan  Leech

Boylesports

Representatives

Self-represented

Pat Collier, Collier Broderick

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-00076767-001

24/10/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and one witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.  An additional witness for the respondent undertook to give his evidence under oath.  Cross examination was facilitated.

The hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment 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 a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The respondent submitted that the dismissal was substantially justified and procedurally fair.  The facts are not in dispute. 

The complainant was employed by the respondent as an Assistant Manager and was engaged in trashing bets, falsifying paperwork and records and admitted to repeated breaches of the financial controls put in place by his employer.  This amounted to a breach of financial integrity and trust on the part of the complainant.

The complainant was afforded the right to representation and was allowed to address the complaints that were made against him.  He was afforded the right of appeal.  The respondent submitted that the dismissal was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

Witness evidence:

The first witness for the respondent was the regional manager. He stated that he was not aware of any issues prior to September 2025. He explained that the trashing of bets referred to when there was a duplicate bet written out that needed to be cancelled in order to balance the books. He stated that authorization must be sold from the regional manager to trash a bet. This was introduced in the first quarter of 2025 and training was provided to staff on this procedure.

He outlined why it is considered a serious infraction in that it impacted on cash flow and on client expectations in that a client might expect payout from a trashed bet. He stated that the cash check related to the records and paper trail as cash needed to be tracked on an hourly basis. The cash balance was recorded on the system.

He stated that falsification which could cover misappropriation is considered as gross misconduct in the employee handbook. He noted that the complainant had a previous stage 2 sanction on his file within the previous year, and that related to the unauthorised trashing of a bet.

Under cross examination he was asked whether he was aware that the majority of staff are falsifying bet and he was asked whether this was reported. He stated that he was aware that another disciplinary matter was pursued but as he was not involved in it he could not answer any questions on that matter. He was then asked was he aware that the cashier was responsible and he was asked why she was not disciplined. He referred to his earlier answer that he was not party to those other disciplinary procedures being followed.

The second witness for the respondent was the head of retail operations. She stated that she was not involved in the process before the appeal hearing. She noted that the appeal was procedurally correct, and all factors were taken into consideration. She stated that the complainant confirmed that he was solely responsible. She stated that she took into account the various allegations and his part admission of trashing bets and that this was not disputed.

The witness noted that gross misconduct is outlined in the handbook and includes falsifying documentation. She noted that it is a cash handling business and that when trust is gone in an employee it is very difficult to get back. She noted that he made reference to other allegations but when she sought examples or the names of people involved, he didn't offer details to the appeal. She stated that she was aware of the stage 2 warning on his file and it was one of the main reasons for upholding the decision. She confirmed that the process was conducted fairly and that natural justice was provided to the complainant in that the appeal was genuinely independent. She noted that each ground for appeal was heard and was carefully considered before the decision to a polled the dismissal was taken.

Under cross examination she was asked did the earlier disciplinary action have a major impact on the business and was told that it did not. It was put to her that only a procedural issue was raised with him prior to this. The witness was asked whether other employees faced disciplinary matters, and she indicated that they did and that these disciplinary matters dealt with cash variances. She stated that the bond of trust was broken.

Closing Statement:

By way of closing statement the respondent submitted that the complainant occupied position of trust. He admitted to the facts of this case and the decision to dismiss him was based on fact not on speculation. It was submitted that improper financial conduct amounting to gross misconduct can arrive at a breach of trust.

The respondent submitted that the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances of this case.

The complainant submitted that he knows why he was dismissed.  However, he submitted that this was how he was trained by his superiors including the falsification of cash bets.  He submitted that others in other shops have done the same but were not dismissed and noted two named examples.

He submitted that during his time with the respondent many issues were visible that management never care to resolve. He became an assistant manager within 6 months of my employment due to his quick and detailed understanding of the job.  He never had issues with the company before this dismissal, often covering shifts, relocating shops and putting himself out for the company.

The complainant submitted that he was dismissed due to trashing bets totalling €85 and witnessing another colleague trashing a bet for €100 euro. HE was also dismissed for manipulating cash checks (company records). He stated in the appeal the trashing bets was human error, during the period he was flat out with college and asked the company for a bit of time off.

The complainant submitted that he had been doing both college and work since September 2024 and the company were always ok with giving him less hours during the week. But due to the company staff issue, which they failed to resolve for months, he was forced to work extra over the summer and as well as college leaving him with no hours to myself in the week. He submitted that he asked for time off or less hours but didn't get it often being put into a different shop. He believes that the manipulating cash checks was blown well out of proportion. This is something he was taught to do and everybody in the company does the same thing. He didn't know any other way.

As regards the trashing of bets, the complainant submitted that it was human error in that he believed that the bets were paid for when some were not in fact paid for. He was blamed solely and the other employee who trashed a bet for €100 too got no blame or disciplinary actions taken against her.

The complainant submitted that in his time in the company other employees have done far worse than he with no disciplinary action. The complainant submitted several allegations against other staff members but noted that despite the infractions they received no disciplinary sanction.

The complainant submitted that he had a total of three meetings before the respondent had ‘the courage’ to dismiss him. He noted that the appeal process itself took nearly a month. The regional manager on the call that dismissed him was very condescending and rude. He noted that even after his dismissal he contacted his regional manager who believed he had been unfairly dismissed and would get his job back if he appealed.

The complainant submitted that he had been a loyal and great worker during his employment, never causing issues.  He submitted that he believed that he was unfairly dismissed due to the actions of an employee in the company who faced no consequences.  He noted that they treated him horribly during his employment with no regard for his health.

The complainant gave additional evidence stating that he was dismissed on the day but noted that he was told that dismissal was a possible outcome of the investigation.

No cross examination took place.

Closing Statement:

By way of a closing statement the complainant submitted that he did not think that his dismissal was fair based on the actions of others.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this section, 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.

Section 6(4) states:

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee,

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

The parties are in agreement that the dismissal of the complainant arose from his conduct. 

Paragraph 4(6) of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures states that

6.       The procedures for dealing with such issues reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations, must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures which include:

• That employee grievances are fairly examined and processed
• That details of any allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned
• That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints
• That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure
• That the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors, circumstances

The steps outlined in the Code were followed by the respondent. The complainant did not challenge this version of events and alluded in his submissions to the appeal taking place.  Accordingly I am satisfied that the complainant’s dismissal was fair in all the circumstances.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant’s dismissal was fair.

Unfair Dismissals Act – evidence presented - dismissal established as fair