Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Airport

Representatives

Shonagh Byne SIPTU

Internal HR

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 - 00005099

03/09/2025

This dispute concerns the Worker’s suspension from duty on 12 May 2025, arising from an incident on 7 May 2025 in which it was alleged that she was wearing a recording device in a security-sensitive area of Dublin Airport.

The Worker, an Airport Search Unit Officer with long service and no prior disciplinary record, was placed on paid suspension pending investigation. Following an investigation, it was established that the device in question was a personal fan and not a recording device. No disciplinary sanction was imposed and the Worker returned to work on 5 June 2025.

The Worker stated that the decision to suspend, and the manner in which it was implemented, was unnecessary, disproportionate and procedurally unfair. The Employer asserted that the suspension was a reasonable precautionary measure in a high-security environment, based on the information available at the time.

The Worker stated that:

• The suspension was disproportionate, particularly given that the device had been worn openly for a period without issue.
• No attempt was made to obtain her version of events prior to the decision to suspend.
• The matter could and should have been resolved informally on 7 May 2025.
• The manner of suspension (early morning, immediate removal from duty, escort from premises) caused reputational harm and distress.
• Her health circumstances, including heat sensitivity, were not adequately considered.
• The eventual finding of no wrongdoing demonstrates that suspension was unwarranted.

The Employer stated that:

• The Worker informed a colleague that the device was a camera, which constitutes a serious potential breach of airport bye-laws.
• In a security-critical environment, such a report must be treated with the utmost seriousness.
• Suspension with pay was a precautionary measure to facilitate an investigation and protect security and operational integrity.
• The investigation process was fair and consistent with procedures.
• The Worker did not disclose that the device she was wearing was a fan, and not a camera, until the investigation meeting.
• An independent review concluded that the decision to suspend was reasonable, albeit with scope for improved processes.

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

This dispute arises from an incident on 7 May 2025 in which the Worker informed a colleague that a device she was wearing was a camera. In a security-sensitive airport environment, such a statement was reasonably understood as indicating the possible use of a prohibited recording device. This information was reported and escalated to management.

It is not in dispute that, at the time the decision to suspend was made, the Employer was in possession of witness accounts indicating that the Worker had confirmed she was wearing a recording device. In the context of airport security operations, where strict byelaws apply and the use of such devices is prohibited, I accept that this gave rise to a matter of serious concern requiring immediate consideration.

I am satisfied that the Employer was entitled to treat the matter as potentially serious and to act on the information available at that time. The threshold for management intervention in a high-security environment is necessarily lower than in other workplaces, given the risks associated with breaches of security protocols. In those circumstances, I find that the decision to place the Worker on precautionary suspension with pay, pending investigation, fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the Employer. The purpose of such a suspension is not punitive, but to allow the employer to establish the facts where serious allegations arise, and I am satisfied that this was the basis upon which the Employer acted. I do not accept that the matter could reasonably have been addressed on an informal basis at that point, given the nature of the allegation as it was understood by management.

It is clear, however, that the Worker was present and identifiable on the day of the incident and that the matter was not raised with her prior to the conclusion of her shift. While operational constraints, including the unavailability of managers, were cited, I consider that earlier engagement with the Worker might have clarified the position at an earlier stage and potentially avoided escalation. While this does not render the decision to suspend unreasonable, it represents a shortcoming in the handling of the matter at an initial stage.

Notwithstanding this, the decision-making of management must be assessed by reference to the information available to them at the time the suspension was imposed. That information indicated that the Worker herself had confirmed the presence of a prohibited device. In that context, I find that the decision to suspend was reasonable.

It is also significant that the Worker did not clarify, prior to the investigation meeting, that the device in question was a fan rather than a recording device. This explanation was first provided during the formal investigation process. The initial characterisation of the device as a camera was therefore a material factor contributing directly to the Employer’s actions.

The subsequent investigation established that the device the Worker was wearing on 7 May 2025, namely a fan, was not capable of recording and that no breach of the byelaws had occurred. The Employer accepted this finding and did not pursue disciplinary action, restoring the Worker to her role. This demonstrates that the Employer engaged in a full fact-finding process and was prepared to conclude the matter appropriately once the relevant facts were established.

I have also considered the Worker’s concerns regarding the manner in which the suspension was implemented, including the lack of prior notice and the circumstances in which she was removed from duty. While I accept that this was distressing for the Worker, I do not find that the Employer acted outside the bounds of fair procedure in this regard. In a secure operational environment, the immediate removal from duty and restriction of access are both necessary and proportionate once a decision to suspend has been taken.

Similarly, while the Worker has raised concerns regarding reputational impact and personal distress, I note that the suspension was on full pay, no disciplinary finding was made against her, and there was no actual reputational damage arising from disclosure beyond those who needed to know.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that:

• The Employer acted on the basis of information which reasonably indicated a serious potential breach;
• The decision to impose a precautionary suspension was justified in the circumstances;
• The investigation process was conducted in line with fair procedures;
• The outcome, namely no disciplinary action, reflects that the Employer appropriately reassessed the matter once the facts were established.

While I have identified that earlier engagement on 7 May 2025 may have improved the handling of the matter at an initial stage, this does not alter my overall findings.