ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003087
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
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-00004432-001 | 12/05/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/01/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
As there is no dispute over the facts and procedures involved in this case I have decided that it is in the interests of both parties to only record the closing arguments presented by them.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The decision to dismiss an employee is not something which the Respondent takes lightly or does frequently. However it is simply inconceivable that they could continue to employ her in the light of her actions. Two separate findings were made that the Claimant’s actions constituted gross misconduct, and in such circumstances, dismissal is the only sanction which could apply. In addition, the Respondent was forced to go to extraordinary lengths to compel the Claimant to comply with management instructions in relation to her suspension and other related matters. The relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee has been irreparably destroyed in these circumstances.
The Respondent at all times applied fair procedure to the disciplinary and appeal processes.
The Claimant’s dismissal was proportionate and was not unfair.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent must have clearly recognised the extremely erratic behaviour on the part of the Claimant. Given the nature of the services they provide, they should clearly able to assess that her mental health was in a regressive state. She was an employee of long service at that stage.
An intervention involving an occupational health physician would have been fairer, more compassionate and more pragmatic approach and may have prevented the consequences experienced by her. The Respond3ent has failed in its duty of care to her.
The Claimant is in recovery but the loss of her job has had a crushing effect on her. She respectfully requests that she receive compensation for loss arising from this submission. |
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
[Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
I have considered the submissions made by both parties. The circumstances of this case are such that the Respondent went to great lengths in dealing with the Claimant to ascertain as to what was going on but was none the wiser as a result. The Claimant in the course to the process had access to her trade union and a solicitor but she did not or would not allow them to appraise the Respondent of her situation. Therefore at all times the Respondent was ignorant of the situation and could not have been held responsible for the outcome.
The Respondent at all times provided fair procedures and proportionality in dealing with the Claimant. I therefore find the dismissal fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
I do not find the Claimant’s case well founded and it fails.
Dated: 27th April 2017