ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004204
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-00006187-001 | 29/07/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/01/2017
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).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
During September 2015, I was suspended from my employment concerning allegations with regards to my behaviour. Letters will show that the company believed that they had written complaints from customers regarding my behaviour. These complaints never materialised. Nonetheless, I was held on suspension until October 2015. Following a sham and discredited disciplinary procedure, I was dismissed. I appealed this dismissal to Director of the company. He subsequently decided that I should return to work, as he overturned the decision to dismiss me and requested that I return to work on Monday 08/02/2016 at 9:30am. See letter from him dated 26/01/2016. I then received a letter from the Manager instructing me not to return to work on the aforementioned date, and that he would instead hold a further disciplinary meeting concerning the same matters that had been raised previously. He invited me to attend an investigative/disciplinary meeting to have these matters dealt with further. I felt that this was a total breach of normal procedures and an attempt to intimidate and bully me into resigning my position. I informed the manager that I would not participate in this investigative/disciplinary hearing as I felt the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. I was put on paid leave for a period of two weeks, and the company stopped paying me on 22/02/2016, on the grounds that I did not participate in the investigation. As a side issue to this, I felt that I should have been compensated fully for being suspended following the first allegations, and the company refused to consider this. Overall, I feel that I have been victimised in this matter and I also believe that the company has absolutely abused its position by their actions, and in particular, by the misuse of CCTV which I believe the company has never issued their policy on the exact use of CCTV within the workplace. As can be seen from other correspondence that will be produced at the hearing, when you consider that the company relied entirely on their opinion of what was contained in the CCTV footage, which I also believe was retained for far too long according to the Data Protection Act. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The manager and directors of the business respectively undertook due process in investigating and hearing all aspects of the Claimant’s case before making a decision to dismiss her. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.
The Claimant did not deny that she had engaged in theft from the business at any stage of the proceedings, nor did she offer any reason for her actions or remorse. In fact she refused to engage in the investigation / disciplinary process, despite the best efforts to accommodate her as meetings had top be rescheduled on a number of occasions due to her non-attendance.
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 of the parties. The Claimant successfully appealed her original dismissal. However, further issues arose during this process which caused serious concern for the Respondent. It is clear that the Claimant declined to become involved in any further investigation / disciplinary procedures despite the arrangement made by the Respondent. The Respondent made serious allegations in regard to the Claimant which at no stage did she denied any of them.
The Claimant argued that she did not have faith in the second investigation and that it was a rehash of the original claims. The fact that she successfully appealed the original dismissal does not support this claim.
The fact that the Claimant did not participate in the second investigation / disciplinary process contributed greatly to her dismissal as the Respondent did not receive any rebuttal of their allegations against her. The Respondent drew their own conclusion and had no option but to dismiss the Claimant in the circumstances.
I do not find the claim for unfair dismissal well founded and it fails.
Dated: 21st April 2017