Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Maureen  Brennan

Paddy Power

Representatives

Self-represented

Katie Nugent The HR Suite

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-00072303-001

11/06/2025

The complainant, Ms. B was employed by the respondent as a Retail Betting Assistant from 19 June 2017 until her dismissal on 17 February 2025 on grounds of gross misconduct.

The respondent denies the unfair dismissal claim submitting that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following a fair investigation disciplinary and appeals process.

The complainant submits that she was employed by the company for more than eight years and had no previous disciplinary issues.

She submits that she worked hard, regularly covered additional shifts and, at times, worked up to 50 hours per week and is deeply upset by how the investigation and dismissal process was handled. The complainant submits that her dismissal arose due to incidents where she had incorrectly combined breaks or adjusted her start and finish times in relation to four days during a two-week period before Christmas 2025

The complainant submits that she did this due to significant pressures at home, including caring for a sick child and after receiving a new long-term health diagnosis herself,

The complainant submits that she checked the arrangements with colleagues, who during these incidents recorded her as being on a break or logged her off after a break.

The complainant accepts that the way she managed this was incorrect, but submits that these were isolated incidents, out of character and did not occur before or after those four days. The complainant submits that the circumstances were not investigated fully or fairly.

 The complainant submits that she repeatedly explained that staffing levels often made it difficult to take breaks, and that concerns about insufficient cover had previously been raised with management in this regard.

The complainant submits that colleagues who should have been interviewed do not appear to have been interviewed

The complainant submits that she felt pressured during the meetings to provide answers beyond the explanations she had already given. The complainant submits that her health condition and personal circumstances length of service or previously unblemished record were not taken into account.

The complainant submits that Mr C had been involved in a previous matter about which she had raised a complaint with HR and the district manager and which she submits created a potential conflict and affected her confidence in the impartiality of the process. The complainant submits that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate and that a warning or suspension would have recognised both the mistake and the exceptional circumstances.

The Respondent denies unfair dismissal and submits that the Complainant was fairly dismissed for repeated gross misconduct involving attendance records, time theft and shared login credentials.

The respondent submits that the Complainant began work as a Retail Betting Assistant on 19 June 2017 and was dismissed on 17 February 2025 on grounds of gross misconduct.

The respondent submits that following concerns raised about staffing levels and inability to take breaks in the store where the complainant worked, the respondent reviewed Arkle login records and CCTV in respect of the store where the complainant worked.

The Respondent submits that the complainant was investigated due to four incidents involving shared login details and manipulated attendance records which it submits amounted to 11 paid hours of absence as well as 12 hours of lost trade during the period in question.

The respondent submits that the following incidents led to the complainant being subjected to the disciplinary process

13 December 2024: CCTV showed a colleague logging onto the Complainant’s computer while she was absent. She arrived at 11.36am for a rostered 9.30am start.

14 December 2024: The Complainant logged a colleague into Arkle after that colleague’s 9.30am start time. The Complainant left at 1.58pm, although rostered until 5pm, and a colleague logged her out at 5.05pm.

16 December 2024: A colleague logged the Complainant in at 9.31am; she arrived at 10.57am. She later left at 8.27pm before her 9.30pm finish.

21 December 2024: The Complainant left work at 12.35pm despite being rostered from 9am to 5.30pm; a colleague logged her out at 5.48pm.

The Respondent submits that the complainant was subjected to a fair and impartial disciplinary process which was conducted line with the Company’s policies and procedures and adhering to the rules of natural justice.

The Respondent submits that the complainant was notified of the allegations, given the opportunity to respond, and afforded the right to representation. The Complainant was also afforded the right to appeal which she availed of.

The Respondent submits that confirm following a fair and thorough process, the Company concluded that the misconduct was substantiated and amounted to a serious breach warranting immediate dismissal.

The Respondent submits that the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment was reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with both internal procedures and statutory requirements.

The Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977-2015 (“the Acts”) defines “dismissal” in relation to an employee as including the termination by the employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee.

Section 6(1) of the Acts provides:

“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) of the Acts provides:

“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: . . . (b) the conduct of the employee . . . .”

Section 6(7) of the Acts provides:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so—

(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14 (1) of this Act [the procedure which the employer will observe before and for the purpose of dismissing the employee] or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) of section 7 (2) of this Act”.

I note in Redmond on Dismissal Law 3rd Ed:

[16.10]. Dishonesty, no less than ‘misconduct’, is not a term of art. The phrase covers a multitude of activities from wrongs which are criminal in character, such as theft, embezzlement, industrial espionage and falsification of company records, to wrongs comprising untruths, misleading statements and so on. An act of dishonesty ruptures trust. The UK EAT takes a two-stage approach to dishonesty. First, it must be decided whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If so, then second, consideration must be given to whether the person concerned must have realised that what he or she was doing was by those standards dishonest.[17]

[16.11]. It is not for the employer, nor the WRC, to establish the guilt or innocence of the employee. The WRC will look to see whether there are reasonable grounds to sustain the employer’s suspicion that an employee has acted dishonestly. There is no question of establishing mens rea. In Looney and Co Ltd v Looney[18] the EAT summarised as follows:

‘It is not for the EAT to seek to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant nor is it for the EAT to indicate or consider whether we in the employer’s position would have acted as it did in its investigation or concluded as it did or decided as it did, as to do so would be to substitute our own mind and decisions for that of the employer. Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in his position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided and to set this up as a standard against which the employer’s actions and decision are to be judged.’

[16.12]. Relevant considerations in assessing the employer’s reasonableness may include whether the employee’s behaviour was deliberate, whether the employer delayed its investigation,[19] whether the employee attempted to cover up the conduct, or denied it, or attempted to change his story during the employer’s investigation, whether the employer’s rules, expressed in the contract of employment or otherwise, adverted to the wrong in question so that the employee knew that what he was doing was a disciplinary matter, whether the employee was unable to explain his behaviour,[20] or did not immediately refute an allegation of dishonesty when put to him by his employer.[21]

On (a) above, the process of adjudication does not decide the question of whether, on the evidence before it, the employee should be dismissed. The task is to consider what a reasonable employer would decide.   An Adjudication Officer should have regard to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct in relation to the dismissal.  This requires a determination of the range of responses which a reasonable employer could have taken having regard to the nature of the case and then a consideration as to whether the employer’s decision lay within that range.

On (b) above, this relates to the process under which the dismissal took place. Fair procedures are not perfect procedures. The role of an Adjudication Officer is to establish if the process followed by the company conformed to the accepted standard of fairness and objectivity. A central consideration is whether any purported breach of due process endangered a fair hearing or a fair result. Generally, fair procedures require that details of any allegations of wrongdoing are put to the employee concerned, the employee is given the opportunity to respond to these concerns, the employee is given an opportunity to avail of the right to be represented, and the employee is afforded 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, and circumstances.

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute and accordingly the burden of proof rests on the respondent company to show that it had substantial grounds to dismiss the complainant, that it followed fair and reasonable procedures, and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate having regard to all the circumstances. 

The respondent representative advised the hearing that the complainant was dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct after a fair and objective investigation, disciplinary and appeal process following serious breaches of the respondent’s time and attendance policies, including taking extended breaks and sharing login details with other staff.    The respondent outlined that the disciplinary action related to four specific incidents over a two week period in December 2025 during which the complainant had been logged in or out by other staff members and had been recorded as being in work after she had left and gone home or before she had started work.   The respondent stated that this amounted to the complainant being paid for an additional 12 hours during which she was not at work as well as the sharing of her login details with colleagues.

Witness for the respondent Mr. H, Head of Central Operations outlined the background to the investigation stating that he had received an email from District Manager, Ms. J raising a concern about the taking of breaks in the complainant’s store.  Mr. H stated that Ms, J had asked for CCTV to go through a sample of data in order to understand why colleagues at the store were claiming that it was too busy to take their breaks.

Witness for the respondent District Manager, Ms. J advised the hearing that she had received a missed break log from a colleague in the store on 13th of December 2024 indicating that it was too busy to take a break.

Ms J stated that it did not make sense that the shop was too busy during that period to take a break.   Ms J stated that she needs to ensure that staff are taking breaks and that the purpose of ‘missed break logs’ is that she is notified when a staff member misses a break and the shop manager notifies her when that break is later taken back by the staff member.  Ms. J advised the hearing that the taking of breaks is recorded using the rest break module within the ‘Arkle’ system which requires staff members to log the start and finish times of their breaks.   The respondent advised the hearing that the ‘missed breaks log’ was introduced by the respondent because of a previous WRC ruling in respect of staff breaks.

Ms J stated that there were no missed break logs from the complainant at the time.    The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant at the investigation stage did not deny any of the allegations.  The complainant at the hearing confirmed that she had never disputed what happened.

The respondent advised the hearing that the investigation meeting was held with the complainant on 29th January 2025 and as part of the investigation process the complainant, Ms. B received the investigation background, CCTV footage, and relevant time logs.   The respondent advised the hearing that a disciplinary hearing was scheduled with the complainant and took place on 13 February 2025.

Witness for the respondent Mr. C, People Relations Case Manager who was the assigned disciplinary officer advised the hearing that he arranged the disciplinary hearing and later postponed it to give the complainant more time.  Mr. C stated that he ensured that the complainant received all documents beforehand.

Mr. C advised the hearing that the disciplinary meeting took place on 13 February 2025. He stated that it addressed serious breaches of the time and attendance policies, including extended breaks and sharing login details. Mr. C advised that the allegations included theft of company time and falsifying time records.

Mr. C advised the hearing that he questioned the complainant at the disciplinary meeting and gave her an opportunity to respond and that he considered the mitigating factors raised by Ms. B and reviewed the matter.

Mr. C advised the hearing that the complainant argued that the time taken by her over the four days the subject matter of the disciplinary meeting represented previously missed breaks. However, Mr. C stated that Ms. B when questioned at the disciplinary meeting could not identify when those breaks had been accrued by her.

Mr. C advised the hearing that there was no record that the incidents in question were treated or recorded as breaks in the respondents ‘Arkle’ system, despite Ms. B’s claim that she was using accrued break time when she left work early and a colleague logged her out later.

Mr. C stated that four incidents were examined which included colleagues logging the complainant in or out using shared login details; logging her out after she had left work; logging her in before she arrived; and her taking extended breaks.

Mr C when asked whether dismissal was the usual sanction for such allegations replied, “Yes. There is no tolerance for the theft of company time.”

The complainant Ms. B advised the hearing that she had not intended to steal company time and had merely reclaimed time owed to her for previously missed breaks.

Mr. C stated that the complainant could and should have reported her missed breaks if such was the case but that she did not notify the company.

The complainant Ms. B replied that her assistant manager had logged her in on one of the occasions in question, which she submits should amount to her providing notice.   The complainant also maintained that others had also taken company time in a similar manner.

Mr. C stated that as disciplinary officer, he had to rely on the investigation report.   Mr. C advised the hearing that his decision rested on the allegation that the complainant had repeatedly left the shop without notifying the company.

Mr. C cited a December incident in which the complainant Ms. B left the store at 12.35pm and did not return, yet was logged out by a colleague at 5.48 pm.  Mr. C added that the complainant was paid for those hours she had not worked adding that she was scheduled to work until 5.30 on the day in question.  

The complainant Ms. B stated that this was not her fault as she stated that she had gone home because her child was ill and she had intended to return after lunch but was unable to as her child was more unwell than she had initially realised.   Mr C advised the hearing that at the disciplinary hearing, the complainant Ms. B confirmed that she had not made contact with or told her colleague that she would not be returning that day and so she remained logged in until after her rostered finish at 5:30 p.m., although she had left at 12.35pm.

Ms. B stated that she should have been logged out when she did not return to work but added that her colleague left her logged in for the rest of the day.

The respondent submits that at both the investigation and disciplinary meetings, the complainant confirmed that she had not informed the store that she would not be returning to work that day.

Mr. C stated that Ms. B was paid until 5:30 p.m. that day adding that even when the complainant realised, after the fact that she had been paid for unworked hours, she could have asked for her roster and pay to be checked and corrected.

Witness for the respondent, Mr. T, District Manager Southwest who was the assigned appeal officer, advised the hearing that the complainant Ms. B at the outset of the appeal acknowledged that asking a colleague to log her out breached company policy.

Mr. T advised the hearing that the complainant maintained that she was only taking missed breaks. Mr. T explained that the usual practice is that missed breaks should be reported to the district manager, who may direct an employee to take an additional hour and 15 minutes of break time over the following days.  Mr. T stated that the missed break policy followed a WRC ruling.  Mr. T advised the hearing that the complainant had not logged missed breaks prior to the incidents in question and the time taken was not logged as breaks in the rest break module.

The complainant at the hearing argued that her appeal grounds were not fully considered.   The complainant stated that she had raised her colleagues’ involvement, but they were not interviewed at the time or investigated.  The respondent in reply stated that other investigations had been conducted but it was not in a position to disclose details of same.

The complainant stated that she had reclaimed missed breaks across the four days cited.    The complainant advised the hearing that, during the relevant two weeks in December 2025, she was dealing with her own recently diagnosed auto immune illness as well as caring for a sick child.   The complainant Ms. B stated that she believed the time she was taking was just making up for previously missed breaks.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had not understood the seriousness of the allegations against her at the investigation meeting and stated that she had struggled to explain herself clearly.

The complainant stated that the respondent during the disciplinary process had focused solely on company policy and did not contact the colleagues who had logged her in or out.

The complainant advised the hearing she had not asked to remain logged in beyond her break periods.   The complainant also argued that her length of service was disregarded and that the process was unfair.

The complainant advised the hearing that she was not alleging deliberate bias but that she considered dismissal to be grossly disproportionate.

The complainant at the hearing was asked whether she had notified the respondent in respect of her assertion that she was managing a newly diagnosed condition while caring for an ill child.   In response the complainant stated that she would tell her manager or assistant manager when she needed to leave early because of her child.

The complainant added that she would not normally call the district manager, Ms. T but she asserted that Ms. T was in any event aware of her health issues.  Ms T in response stated that the only knowledge she had of the complainant’s health issues related to a period of sick leave taken by the complainant prior to this and following which she had returned to work. 

The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant Ms. B was paid for hours she had not worked and would have known this when she received her payslip. The complainant Ms. B replied that she had not checked or noticed any discrepancy, but that she had not asked to remain logged in and added that no one else had been investigated or sanctioned in this regard.

Mr. C advised the hearing that the complainant at the investigation meeting admitted that she had shared login details with colleagues.

The complainant Ms. B acknowledged taking time away from work, which she described as common practice, and said she had not known the rules existed.

Mr. C stated that the complainant when asked about the 21st of December incident when she left work at 12:35 p.m., four hours and 55 minutes before her scheduled finish time had stated that she left early because her child was ill and accepted that she probably should have told someone.

The complainant stated that two staff members were covering at the time and that she asked one to log her out after her break.   The complainant stated that the staff member forgot to log her out after the break.

The complainant Ms. B confirmed that she had not updated anyone after learning that she could not return. Asked why her colleague logged her out later, she said he may simply have forgotten to do so earlier.

The complainant at the hearing stated that she wished toclarify that while colleagues did log her in and out on a small number of occasions, this occurred over four specific days across two consecutive weeks only, but it was not an ongoing or regular practice.

The complainant advised the hearing that she did not request or instruct any colleague to log her in for any period beyond her allocated working time or scheduled break and did not ask to be logged in for extended periods.   The complainant stated that she was also not aware that she remained logged in beyond her break time.

Under s.6 of the 1977 Act, the dismissal is presumed unfair unless the Respondent shows it resulted wholly or mainly from a permissible ground and that fair procedures were observed. The reasonableness or otherwise of an employer in conducting a dismissal is addressed under Section6(7) of the Act which provides:

"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so -

(a)    to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and (b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act."

In O’Riordan v Great Southern Hotels UD1469/2003, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has provided a set of guiding principles that an Adjudication Officer must follow when determining whether the respondent reasonably concluded that the complainant was guilty of an Act of gross misconduct:

“In cases of gross misconduct, the function of the Tribunal is not to determine the innocence or guilt of the person accused of wrongdoing. The test for the Tribunal in such cases is whether the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds arising from a fair investigation that the employee was guilty of the alleged wrongdoing”.

The High Court has further echoed and reinforced this line of reasoning in Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, in which Noonan J remarked:

"Section 6(7) makes clear that the court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct in relation to the dismissal. That is however not to say that the court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgment as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer. The question rather is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned."

In considering the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, I have had regard to both the procedural fairness of the process adopted by the Respondent and the proportionality of the sanction imposed.

On the substantive fairness of the dismissal, the respondent company need only show that it’s decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonableness, given the circumstances. 

 I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that due consideration was given to arriving at an appropriate sanction, and that this was proportionate in the circumstances.  

For the reasons outlined, I find the sanction of dismissal comes within the band of reasonable responses of an employer and was proportionate, in the circumstances.

Procedural fairness

I note the respondent’s position that the complainant was given notice of the allegations against her and provided with all relevant documentation before being afforded a fair and impartial investigation disciplinary and appeal process.    

I note that each stage of the process was carried out by a different manager and that the complainant was afforded the right to be represented. 

The complainant at the hearing sought to assert that the process was unfair due to the fact that Mr C who chaired the disciplinary meeting had two years previously been involved in a Think21 matter involving the shop the complainant worked in and for which she was issued a ‘letter of concern’ in relation to a failure to ask for ID to ensure a customer was over 21.

The complainant advised the hearing that she did not realise at the time of her Disciplinary meeting that the disciplinary officer Mr. C was the same person who had previously dealt with the Think21 matter.

The complainant advised the hearing that she did not realise it was the same person until afterwards and so she raised it at the appeal stage.

 The complainant in raising this as an appeal ground stated that at the time of her disciplinary meeting, she had not realised who Mr. C was or realise that he was the same person who had previously handled the Think 21 incident.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had received the letter of concern at 10:30 p.m. at night and that following this she made a complaint to HR about being sent the letter at such a late hour The complainant stated that the respondent HR following her complaint acknowledged it and apologised for same.

The complainant stated that she had not realised during the disciplinary process that Mr. C had been the same person who had handled the Think 21 incident. Ms. B stated that had she known, she would have objected.

Witness for the respondent Mr. C advised the hearing that the Think21 was a separate issue which had occurred two years previously and that he had not been approached by HR about any issue raised regarding his handling of that matter at the time and so he was unaware that the complainant had raised an issue in respect of his handling of that matter.  Mr C added that had the complainant raised an issue or objected to his involvement at the start of the disciplinary hearing, then another chair could have been appointed.

The complainant stated that she raised the issue at the appeal stage as she did not recognise Mr. C or realise who he was at the disciplinary meeting.

The complainant when raising this added that she was not suggesting any intentional bias but that she believed it created, at the very least, a reasonable perception that the process lacked independence.

Having considered this in the wider context, I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Mr. C ‘s involvement in the Think21 matter two years previously does not render the process unfair. 

 I am satisfied based on the totality of the evidence adduced that the Respondent conducted a process which was in line with the requirements of fair procedures and natural justice. The Complainant was notified of the allegations against her and invited to participate in an investigation. She was afforded an opportunity to respond at investigation and disciplinary stages.

The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent engaged with the Complainant at each stage and provided her opportunities to put forward her position and any mitigating factors.

 Accordingly, I am satisfied that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair. 

I am satisfied that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair.  Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.