Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Lorry Driver

Logistics Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Clark Hill Solicitors LLP

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 - 00003669

16/01/2025

On 16th January 2025, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his employer dismissed him in contravention of agreed procedures and without properly establishing due cause. By written response, the Employer stated that the Worker was dismissed following a careful consideration of an allegation of serious misconduct on his behalf, and in the context of an agreed procedure for staff with less than nine months service.  

Following the Employers failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 29th September 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. While the Employer provided a written submission regarding the allegations raised by the Worker, they elected not to attend the hearing itself.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Worker stated that his employment commenced on 3rd September 2024. At all relevant times, he was engaged as an articulated lorry driver. Almost from the outset of this engagement, the Worker raised concerns regarding the vehicle provided, specifically alleging that it lacked a valid insurance disc and road tax. Despite reporting these matters to management, the Worker asserts that the Employer failed to take any remedial action.

Furthermore, the Worker claims he was subjected to significant pressure by the Employer to complete deliveries ahead of schedule. He contends that he performed his duties with due diligence and in the safest manner possible. Notwithstanding the same, the Worker believes the Employer developed a prejudicial view of him as a result of the issues he raised.

On 7th January 2025, during a routine delivery to a retail chain, the Worker noted that several vehicles were obstructing the delivery area. He requested that the store manager move the vehicles to facilitate access, an action he took while mindful of the Employer’s strict time constraints. On 8th January 2025, the Employer summoned the Worker to a meeting and informed him that the manager of the retail chain had lodged a complaint regarding his behaviour the previous day. The Worker clarifies that the specific details of this complaint were never disclosed to him in writing or otherwise.

On 13th January 2025, the Employer informed the Worker that his employment was being terminated on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Worker argues that he was never provided with the evidence supporting these allegations in question, nor was he afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself. Additionally, the Employer denied him the right to appeal the sanction.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that his dismissal was fundamentally unfair. He maintained that the Employer ignored his initial reports regarding vehicle compliance and placed him under unreasonable operational pressure. Ultimately, the Worker asserted that the failure to provide details of the alleged complaint or to allow an appeal constitutes a breach of internal procedures. Finally, the Worker submitted that the operative reason for his dismissal was his raising issues at the commencement of his employment.

The Employer acknowledges that the Worker commenced employment on 3rd September 2024. The Employer maintains that, on 7th January 2025, a member of management from a client organisation lodged a complaint alleging that the Worker had engaged in inappropriate behaviour against a staff member during a delivery. Consequently, the Worker was placed on paid suspension and was required to attend an investigation meeting on 8th January 2025. Minutes of this meeting were recorded and subsequently submitted prior to the formal hearing.

On 9th January 2025, the Worker was invited to a disciplinary meeting and cautioned that the outcome of the same could include dismissal. During this meeting, the Worker received a copy of the investigation minutes and was granted an opportunity to provide his account of the incident. Following a review of the available information, the chairperson issued a formal decision via letter dated 13th January 2025. This correspondence confirmed the Worker’s dismissal on the grounds of unsuitability for the business, citing conduct that amounted to gross misconduct.

The Employer stated that all employees with fewer than nine months of service are subject to an unsuitability policy regarding disciplinary matters. The Employer submits that a thorough investigation into these serious allegations was conducted and that the Worker was fully apprised of the potential for dismissal. It is the Employer’s position that all internal policies were strictly adhered to and are supported by contemporaneous written evidence. Accordingly, the Employer submitted that the dismissal was not unfair and requested that no recommendation be issued in favour of the Worker.

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

Regarding the present case, the Worker submitted that he was unfairly dismissed from his position. In this regard, the Worker maintained that he was subject to an unfair disciplinary process during which he was not properly advised of the allegations against him and was not permitted the right of appeal. By response, the Employer submitted that their procedures allow for the dismissal of an employee with less than nine months of service under an unsuitability policy. By written correspondence, the Employer further submitted that the Worker was afforded all due process and that the dismissal should not be considered unfair.

In this regard, the Worker attended the hearing in question and provided an account of the incident that led to his dismissal. In this respect, the account provided by the Worker is entirely inconsistent with the version referred to by the Employer in the minutes of the relevant meeting. The Worker stated that the interaction with the client of the Employer was not inappropriate in nature, but rather stated that a simple disagreement arose regarding routine parking and the manner by which he was to conduct his delivery.

Regarding the dismissal itself, it is apparent that no statement was taken from the manager in question and put to the Worker as part of the procedure. Rather, it appears that the Employer received the details of the complaint from the manager in question, which were then related verbally to the Worker. In this regard, the Worker never received a written statement of the allegations against him, and it must be noted that he was placed at a significant disadvantage regarding the defence of the same. While the Employer did engage in an investigation meeting and a subsequent disciplinary meeting, it is evident that they did not allow an appeal of the outcome.

Regarding the Worker’s submission concerning the rationale for his dismissal, in these circumstances the Employer would have been required to produce the individual who made the decision to dismiss and, ideally, provide an account of the rationale for doing so, in order to disprove the claim. As the Employer did not attend the hearing, the submission of the Worker is preferred in this regard.

Having reviewed the foregoing, it is found that the procedure adopted by the Employer was unfair, as a statement from the individual in question was not provided to the Worker, nor was he permitted an appeal of the action. It is further found that the allegations raised by the Worker regarding the rationale for his dismissal had not been disproven or addressed by the Employer. Consequently, it is found that the dismissal of the Worker was unfair, and a recommendation will duly issue in his favour.

Dismissal, Statement, Fair Procedures