MND266

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00045088 (CA-00055843-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 19 November 2024 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 June 2026.

The following is the Decision of the Court.

DECISION:

1. Appeal Details

This is an appeal by Mr Peter Gleeson against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00045088/CA-00055843-002) made under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 to 2005 (the Act) in a complaint against Go Ahead Ireland Bus Limited. The Adjudication Officer’s decision is dated 13 November 2024. The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

This appeal is linked with appeal decision no. UDD2628, an appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 to 2015.

For ease, the parties are referred to in the same way as at first instance, so Mr Gleeson is referred to as “the Complainant” and Go Ahead Ireland Bus Limited as “the Respondent”.

At the hearing of the Court on 16 June 2026 in Dublin, the Complainant was represented by Mr Vivian Cullen of SIPTU. The Respondent was represented by Mr David Horgan of Stratis Consulting. The Court received written submissions from both parties in advance of the hearing and heard oral submissions from both parties at the hearing. Evidence was given by Mr Keith McDonnell, Operations Manager, and Mr William Cullen, Regional Operations Manager under oath on behalf of the Respondent, and by the Complainant under oath, although the evidence and submissions predominately related to the linked appeal in respect of the dismissal of the Complainant.

2. Submission of the Respondent

The Respondent operates buses under contract to the National Transport Authority since September 2018 and operates 30 routes in total, 23 Dublin Metropolitan and 5 Dublin Commuter.

The Complainant was a bus driver with the Respondent between 4 November 2019 and 12 December 2022.

The Complainant was summarily dismissed on 12 December 2022 for gross misconduct for using a mobile phone while in control of a company vehicle. The Complainant was advised of his right of appeal and exercised that right but was unsuccessful in his appeal. The Complainant was not paid notice as the Respondent’s policy provides that notice is not payable in cases of summary dismissal for gross misconduct.

The Respondent’s position is that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, the dismissal was fair and fair procedures were applied and therefore the Complainant has no entitlement to notice under the Act.

3. Submission of the Complainant

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a bus driver from 4 November 2019 until his dismissal on 12 December 2022.

The Complainant’s position is that he was unfairly dismissed following a procedurally flawed process involving the improper use of CCTV and pre-judgement at every stage of the process, where what he did could not meet the definition of gross misconduct and where the sanction was disproportionate.

The Complainant was not paid notice on termination of his employment and under the Act, given his service, he had an entitlement to be paid two weeks’ notice.

4. Relevant Legislation

Section 4(1) of the Act provides as follows:

"An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.”

Subsection (2) provides that:

"The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be-

…

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks…”

Section 8 of the Act provides:

"Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any employer or employee to terminate a contract of employment without notice because of misconduct by the other party.”

5. Deliberations

At the time of the termination of the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent, the Complainant had continuous service of just over three years. Pursuant to section 4(2) of the Act, absent any other factors, the Complainant would have an entitlement to payment of two weeks’ notice.

The Court, in the linked appeal UDD2628 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, decided that the Respondent’s decision to summarily dismiss the Complainant for gross misconduct was not unfair.

The Respondent’s policies, incorporated into the Complainant’s contract of employment, reserves the right of summary dismissal in the case of gross misconduct and provide that summary dismissal means dismissal without notice or pay in lieu of notice.

In the context of the provisions of section 8 of the Act, the decision of this Court that the Complainant’s summary dismissal for gross misconduct was not unfair, and the provisions of the Respondent’s policies which provide that no notice is payable in the context of summary dismissal, the Court is satisfied that the Complainant has no entitlement to notice under the Act.

6. Decision

The Complainant has no entitlement to payment of notice under section 4 of the Act in circumstances where he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct and that dismissal has been decided by this Court to be not unfair.

In accordance with the provisions of section 12A of the Act the Court affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer, bearing reference numbers ADJ-00045088 and CA-00055843-002.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
ÁM	______________________
16/09/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing and addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.