LCR21145

The Claimant’s employment was stated in the aforementioned written contract to be permanent in nature, commencing on 15 June 2015. However, the Complainant’s appointment to the position was subject to a 6-month probationary period and was also subject to the Complainant satisfying a number of conditions to his employer’s satisfaction.

The covering letter of 22 May 2015 which accompanied the draft contract of that date issued to the Complainant provided as follows:

• “This offer is conditional on:
  • 
    �the verification of the details provided by you and the Company’s satisfaction with the results of any reference and background checks. If you provide or cause someone else to provide any false or misleading information, or if the Company is not satisfied in its absolute discretion with the results of the reference/background checks, then this offer and any acceptance of it by you will be deemed to be null and void and of no effect. If you have already commenced employment, your employment will be terminated immediately.

    �you providing evidence (as required by law) of your right to work in this role in Ireland.”

The Complainant had submitted a detailedcurriculum vitae(undated) in support of his job application to Symantec, a copy of which was submitted to the Court. On that CV the Complainant stated he had been conferred with an MSc in Bioprocess Engineering by Dublin City University (DCU) in 2013. The Complainant also provided a detailed account of his prior employment history. The background check carried out by HireRight reported that the Complainant had not, in fact, been conferred with an MSc by DCU. The Report further highlighted a discrepancy in relation to the Complainant’s claimed prior employment history.

In any event, the Complainant commenced employment, as agreed, on 15 June 2015. There does not appear to have been any event of note until 13 September 2015 when the Complainant had what he describes as a difficult meeting with his director, followed by a meeting on the same date with his line manager. The subject matter of both meetings related to quarterly sales targets and the Complainant’s performance vis-�-vis those targets. The Complainant immediately thereafter went out on extended certified sick leave which continued until late October 2015. He was certified fit to return to work with effect from 29 October 2015 and -what he believed to be- a return to work interview was arranged with personnel from the HR department to take place on that date.

It is abundantly clear from the submissions made to the Court, that the meeting which took place on 29 October 2015 was not a simple return to work interview; it was, in fact, a disciplinary meeting. The Complainant was presented at this meeting with a copy of the HireRight report and asked to explain the findings therein. The Complainant continued to insist that he had in fact been conferred with an MSc from DCU. The Respondent permitted him to take some time to produce proof of his claim in this regard. The meeting reconvened after an hour and half at which time the Complainant produced a printed copy of an email which he claimed was evidence in support of his assertion that he did hold an MSc degree. It transpired the email was a general email circulated to a wide group of people who were considered to have a possible interest in registering for a doctoral programme at DCU. It was not addressed to the Complainant personally and it did not in any way substantiate his claim. The Complainant was dismissed at this meeting and paid two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. A copy of the employer’s minute of this meeting was submitted to the Court.

A letter confirming the Complainant’s dismissal issued to him thereafter dated 6 November 2015 and signed by the Complainant’s line manager. The letter outlined the reason the Complainant’s dismissal as follows:

• “Because you were offered the position with the premise that you held a master’s degree and because you could not provide evidence that you completed this course the decision was taken to terminate your employment with immediate effect.”

• “[The Complainant’s] employment was terminated with Veritas on 29^thOctober 2015 due to unsuccessful probation.”

• “Because [the Complainant] was offered the position with the premise that he held a master’s degree and because he could not provide evidence that he completed the course the decision was taken to terminated his employment with immediate effect.”

Employer’s Arguments:

• 
  1. The Worker claimed that he held a master’s degree and he was hired on that premise but it subsequently transpired that he did not hold a master’s degree.

  2. The Worker was in his probation period at the time of his dismissal.

• 
  1. The Worker argues that it was not a requirement of the job that he hold a master’s degree.

  2. The Worker says that he did not know that the meeting at which he was dismissed was a disciplinary meeting and that he was not afforded an opportunity to have a representative present at that meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Respondent submitted to the Court that the meeting of 29 October 2015, during the course of which the Complainant was dismissed with immediate effect from his employment was not a disciplinary meeting and, by extension, was not subject to the rules of natural justice that invariably apply in such circumstances regardless of whether an employee is within or without his or her probationary period.

On questioning of the Respondent’s legal representative, the Court was informed that the Respondent had neglected to apply the following fundamental requirements of fair procedures in its dealings with Complainant:

• 
  a.At no stage did the Respondent issue the Complainant with a letter informing him in advance of 29 October 2015 that the meeting he was invited to attend on that date would be a disciplinary meeting;

  b.The Respondent did not put the Complainant on advance notice of its concerns about his alleged misrepresentation concerning his educational qualifications and prior employment history;

  c.The Respondent failed to advise the Complainant of his right to be accompanied/represented at the meeting of 29 October 2015;

  d.The Complainant was not issued with a copy of the Respondent’s s disciplinary policy before or during the course of the meeting;

  e.The Complainant was not given advance written notice that he was at risk of having his employment terminated at the aforementioned meeting;

  f.The decision to dismiss the Complainant was communicated by management in the course of the meeting on 29 October 2015 such that there is no evidence that the decision maker took a reasonable period to reflect on anything the Complainant offered in defence of the allegations put to him at the meeting;

  g.The letter of dismissal issued to the Complainant one week after he had been dismissed did not advise him of a right of appeal against his dismissal.

The Complainant, for his part, confirmed to the Court that he does not hold a master’s degree. By implication, he provided false and misleading information to the Respondent when he submitted his employment application to it. In this regard, the Court finds that the Complainant contributed significantly to his dismissal.

In light of the foregoing, the Court upholds the complaint and finds that the Complainant was dismissed in breach of his rights to natural justice and fair procedures. The Court recommends that the Respondent pay the Complainant €6,000.00 in compensation.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
25th February, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.