ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004589

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Manager	Retail Store

Complaint(s):

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-00006619-001	24/08/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/05/2017

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [ and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015] 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).

Background:

The Claimant is claiming unfair dismissal

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Claimant was dismissed by letter on 11 March 2016 following an investigation into a complaint that he had breached the Respondent’s Policy on Dignity and Respect in the Workplace. All staff were trained in this policy and are aware of it. In the circumstances the dismissal was a reasonable response in the circumstances.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

A work colleague made a complaint regarding the Claimant’s behaviour at a leaving party of one of his colleagues. It was an out-of-hours meeting organised by staff. The complaint concerned the Claimant making a derogatory remark about a colleague. Details were provided to the Hearing.

The remark was made in the context of an ongoing slagging culture among the staff of the Respondent. The said ‘culture’ was thriving and vibrant not only out of hours but more importantly during normal working hours. Insulting and pejorative words related to sexual orientation, ethnic origin or mental qualities were used at the time between staff members of all levels on a daily basis without anyone taking insult.

The said outing was not ‘an associated event in the course of employment’. It was not organised or paid for by the Respondent, nor was it an official ‘work outing’. The alleged behaviour, a single isolated incident, even if considered inappropriate (which is denied) could only be classified as an ‘affront to dignity’. The dismissal letter does not explain why ‘summary dismissal was the most appropriate sanction’.

Decision:

Section 41 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 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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 both parties. The Claimant has argued inter alia that a dismissal over a single incident is disproportionate given the Claimant clean career with the Respondent. He further argued that a ‘slagging culture’ exists amongst the staff.

In considering these arguments, the whole purpose of a Dignity at Work Policy is to curtail such a culture and to ensure tit does not get out of hand. The Claimant’s colleague took exception his remarks and made a complaint which was investigated and founded to be true. Furthermore the Claimant held a senior position, a manager and should have known better.

I accept that the Respondent had no choice but institute a dismissal if the Dignity at Work policy was to mean anything. I therefore do not find the dismissal to be unfair in the circumstances.

Dated: 29 September 2017

Key Words: