ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007478
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Warehouse Selector | A Large Stores Group |
Representatives | Paul McNulty, Brooks & Company Solicitors | Kiwana Ennis B.L instructed by Vincent and Beatty Solicitors. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00010134-001 | 08/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26 October 2017 and 9 January 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This is a claim for Unfair Dismissal in respect of a dismissal for Gross Misconduct in January ,2017. The Respondent denied the claim. Both parties were legally represented and both made extensive oral and written submissions. The Respondent was represented by Counsel and Solicitor and the Complainant by a Solicitor. The Respondent submitted transcripts of key meetings in the case. |
Summary of Respondents ’s Case:
The Respondent runs a collection of large Food Discount Stores. The Complainant worked as a Warehouse Selector on this site from 11 March 2013 until the time of his Dismissal for Gross Misconduct on January 10, 2017. This evolved from the removal of sweets from a crate on three occasions during 4 December, 2016. On 21 April ,2016, The Respondent had issued the complainant with a formal written warning in respect of “a work boots issue” some 9 months earlier. This was not appealed. The Complainant was informed that the warning would remain on his personnel file for a period of 12 months and that “any further misconduct will lead to further disciplinary action being taken against you, up to and including summary dismissal”. The Respondent submitted that it had been made clear to the complainant that the company presided over a zero-tolerance policy in respect of theft of goods and this Policy was adopted across the board. The Respondent outlined that the complainant had been reported for taking sweets out of a crate at the warehouse and eating them. The Section Leader reviewed the CC TV Footage an exhibited it to the complainant who minimised the action. The Complainant was then suspended on 14 December ,2016 for investigating the allegation that the complainant had removed and consumed company stock without authorisation. The Complainant was informed that this may lead to disciplinary action up to and including his dismissal. The Respondent submitted that for their business to work, Trust had to be demonstrated to an absolute degree, the value of a product taken was irrelevant. This principle had been communicated to all employees. The Disciplinary Meeting was postponed to 28 December, 2016 based on the complainant’s illness. The Complainant confirmed that he had taken and consumed the sweets without permission. The Respondent invited the complainant to attend a follow up meeting on January 10, 2017. The Complainant telephoned to say that he was unwell and not available to attend. The Respondent then confirmed that the decision had been taken to dismiss the complainant and outlined his right of appeal within 5 days The Respondent contended that the dismissal was reasonable and fair. Evidence of Section Manager. Mr B Mr B had worked for the company for 10 years and oversaw 40/50 staff. He had worked as Section Manager from April 2015. He outlined that the company placed trust in the 15-20 Selectors based in the Warehouse. The Company took a very high stance on theft. Mr B gave an outline of the “work boots issue” in March 2016. The Complainant had taken boots belonging to an employee on sick leave. At that time work boots were not provided by the company. This changed in Summer of 2016. When the complainant was faced with allegations of taking the boots. he asked that the matter be “kept between ourselves and no need to escalate “He also raised that the company’s failure to remove the boots on discovery could have been viewed as acceptance. He received a written warning. Mr B referred to the incident in the warehouse on 4 December, 2017. A Supervisor had reported to the Complainants Line Manager that he had seen a staff member taking sweets. The Line Manager had asked permission to see the CC TV footage. On 10 December, Mr B spoke with the line manager and learned that the complainant had been seen taking sweets on the CC TV and the matter was progressing to Disciplinary. The Complainant was invited to meet but rang in sick and the company pushed it out for another week to December 28 ,2017. The Complainant admitted that there were others involved, but did not name anyone. The Complainant mentioned that sweet distribution to staff had happened in the past but Mr B had not seen it. He checked with the Supervisors and they had no recollection of this practice. The Complainant minimised the removal of the sweets and admitted that he had taken the sweets but rationalised that he understood they were for common usage as had happened during previous Christmas and Easter, 2014. He did not put forward any mitigation. Mr B had difficulty believing the complainant as 60 people would have passed the Ambient based tray where the sweet lay untouched. Mr B submitted that Damaged goods were not left for staff to take. The Complainant cancelled his attendance for the Disciplinary outcome meeting and it was not rescheduled. Mr B got a sense that the complainant was playing games as he called in sick twice. He would have preferred to meet with him. Two other employees surfaced as taking sweets on the CC TV, one resigned and one was dismissed. Mr B clarified the status of damaged goods in the company protocol as products destined to be destroyed. During cross examination, Mr B confirmed that the complainant had worn the “work boots “for 1.5 days and he had not interviewed anyone who used the boots. There was no CC TV footage of the complainant taking the boots. Mr B admitted an oversight on giving a copy of the CC TV footage and the Statement to the complainant. He thought there would be further time. The Line Manager had authorised paid suspension for the Complainant. Mr B confirmed that he had interviewed several co-workers od he complainant in relation to the allegation that sweet redistribution was a wide spread practice. He gave the interviewees minutes of their meeting. The Complainant had admitted taking the sweets and there was no conflict in facts. Mr B disputed that the complainant was not allowed to put in a proper defence. Mr B stated that he was 100% confident that he had never seen Halloween and Christmas stock universally consumed by staff. The stock at the centre of the case were loose sweets and were waste. No eating/drinking was permitted at the Warehouse and He had seen sweets in the Canteen once at Halloween.
Evidence of Section Leader: Mr C. Mr C had been Section Leader over 21 staff since August 2016. He confirmed that stock was not to be consumed for Health and Safety purposes. Value was not relevant as it was all seen as company property. The Complainant would have been aware of this through his contract, handbook and Induction. Stock was never left on the floor for consumption. He also confirmed that stock was not labelled by means of “take or not take”. Mr C outlined that his Deputy had informed him that the complainant had taken sweets. This was a 5-minute conversation. He contacted the Section Manager and they reviewed the CC TV footage on 8 December 2016. On 10 December, the complainants next working day, he asked him to attend the security office and exhibited the CC TV footage. The Complainant confirmed that he took a couple of sweets and remarked “What’s the big deal?” and requested that the matter be kept between them. Mr C was not satisfied and moved to suspend the complainant. He indicated that Mr B, Section leader would confirm this in writing. He subsequently received a text from the complainant seeking information and he passed it to Mr B. Mr C was requested to review the footage for a shift and found two other staff taking sweets. He passed the matter to the Section Leader. Mr C confirmed that water consumption is permitted at work. This is addressed during Induction and covered in the staff handbook and monitored by the Section Leaders He had not seen staff consuming product. During cross examination, Mr C was asked about Halloween stock being left out for staff in 2013 and 2015.He confirmed that he didn’t work at Halloween and hadn’t seen stock left out. Mr C confirmed that his shift finished at 1 am. He confirmed that the complainant was the first spotted on CC TV at 6 am on 4 Dec and both others followed afterwards. Mr C did not take statements from the work colleague who reported the complainant eating sweets. Mr C completed his own statement on 10 December. Mr C confirmed that Drivers were not employed by the company, but habitually use a bench in the warehouse. Evidence of Logistics Director: Mr D Mr D assumed his position in December 2014, engaged in handover and commenced in the role proper on 1 February, 2015. With the assistance of Maps of the Floor space, he introduced the typical area of operations. The photos were taken in August 2017 in preparation for the hearing. He outlined that some damaged products could be re-modelled, some diverted to the canteen, some reprocessed and defective products were discarded. This was not a process governed by labels unless an emergency arose. The Company would endeavour to reprocess for sale or donate to charity. There was a 4 stage Algorithm. Damaged goods were never distributed to staff. Stock value ranged between 16 and 21 million euros. He explained markings on a crate as: White paper Instruction to dispose Yellow card Do not pick signs indicated a Holding area. There had been no changes to lay out outside a pedestrian crossing in March 2016. Mr D confirmed that theft referred to anything that belonged to others and contractors a went further than stealing. It was a company core value. This was addressed at Induction when contracts were presented. He also submitted that the company had a zero tolerance towards eating on duty. The drivers are permitted coffee on a bench in the warehouse, which is not provided from staff use. Selectors are permitted water via sports cap bottles to prevent spills. Mr D recounted that an excess of ordered product (Halloween mallows) had been returned to the warehouse in January 2014. At a first course of action it was offered to schools, fire / police dept. prior to receipt by the warehouse. The surplus stock was offered to staff via sealed boxed and managers took responsibility for the distribution. This had not been repeated since. Mr D denied that sweets had been left for staff at the ambient office. Mr D addressed the request made by the complainant for terms and conditions for returns and stated that this was a language not known to him. Mr D was the appointed appeals officer in the case of dissatisfaction with earlier processes. He was not called upon to hold an appeal in this case. During cross examination, Mr D confirmed that there was a zero-tolerance policy on theft. In the event of discovery of theft at the warehouse, an employee is expected to report it upwards, but were not sanctioned in the absence of that reporting. Mr D confirmed that damaged goods were not logged digitally. The crate is left outside the ambient office for loose product awaiting disposal. Mr D confirmed that an appeal encompassed a full investigation of all aspects of the case again. He confirmed that the CC TV system was not backed up. In her closing statement, Counsel for the respondent re-affirmed that the company had a zero-tolerance policy on theft of stock and this was a core value for the company. The Complainant should have experienced this at first hand when he was involved in the “Boots “issue for which he was issued a 12-month written warning in April 2016, He remained on this warning at the time of the “sweets event”. He ought to have exercised more vigilance in relation to the content of the carte on December 4, 2016. Counsel argued that he had no reason to take the stock. The issue of past performance of distribution of marshmallows preceded the Boots and sweets events and it was managed in a structured manner complete with encapsulated boxes of product. The sweets in the crate were distinguishable from this isolated practice. Food was left out for staff at the respondent premises. Counsel went on to submit that the Complainant had shown no remorse, no insight and instead sought to minimise the action by referring to it as “only a couple of sweets “The complainant did not advance a confirmation that it would not be repeated. The Respondent submitted that the complainant had not demonstrated mitigation of loss. He had not exercised his opportunity to appeal the decision taken to dismiss him. He relied on extracts of a persecution complex as a rationale for his decision not to appeal but did not adduce evidence of this. Both employees involved in the sweets issue were both dismissed. The Company had no desire to target the complainant as he had been a competent worker.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant is a Polish National and commenced working with the Respondent through an Agency on 23 February, 2009.He became directly employed in April 2013 and transferred to the current base in Mid-August, 2013.He received a promotion to Deputy Manager in November,2013. On 10 December,2016, the complainant, without notice was approached by his Section Leader who displayed CC TV footage of him taking sweets from a crate on the Warehouse floor. The Complainant sought to explain the context of the event as arising from other occasions where sweets had been left for universal consumption. This explanation was not accepted and the complainant was suspended. The Complainant subsequently sought a copy of the footage and the “recalls policy “but was not provided with these. The Complainant was hindered in providing his defence at the Disciplinary hearing because of the dearth in documentation/CC TV footage sought. The Complainant submitted the name of the person who confirmed that the sweets were consumable and clarified further the universal practice where sweets were made available for consumption. The Complainant was ill and unavailable for the Disciplinary outcome meeting on January 10 and was under the impression that this date was to be rescheduled, but this did not follow. The Complainant was then dismissed by way of registered letter dated 9 January 2017, the day before the outcome meeting. The Complainants Representative outlined that there had been a duplication in terms of the same Company Representative conducting the investigation, disciplinary hearing and Dismissal. The Complainant was aggrieved that his explanations were not heard or his reference to a widespread practice surrounding sweets was not probed. Some information was subsequently made available through a data access request. The Complainants Representative referred to extensive case law in support of arguments in the case. ADJ 3750 A Cleaning operative v a Facility Services Provider Ruffley and The Board of Management, St Ann’s School [2017] IESC 33 Bank of Ireland and James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241 ADJ 2653 An Employee and A Fishing Processing Company Cassidy v Shannon Castle Banquets and another [199] IEHC 245 Pottle Pig Farm and Valery Panasov UD/17/24 He submitted that the complainant had not been afforded reasons for his suspension or alternatives to his Dismissal. He was curtailed by the delay in receiving the CC TV footage and by being denied access to a Recalls Policy. The Disciplinary procedure was tainted by duplication in Investigation, Disciplinary Hearing and Decision to dismiss. There was insufficient regard for the complainant’s explanation that he understood that the product consumed was open for staff use and further insufficient investigation of comments attributed to other staff members on verification of the universal practice of sweet consumption. The Complainant was denied fair procedures. Evidence of the Complainant: The Complainant confirmed that he had previously worked as an agency worker in Naas as an Order Picker. He was hired by the Respondent in a permanent capacity in April 2013.When the second warehouse opened he transferred there and looked forward to a career with the Respondent. He was promoted to the role of Deputy Manager for a year and was replaced when he went on leave. He was offered to step down or be demoted and he chose to step down and retrain in October 2014. The Complainant recalled the “work boots issue” and felt it was exaggerated. His own shoes were hurting and he asked if he could have the boots, which didn’t even have laces as he had to transfer his own. The boots went largely unacknowledged until the Section Leader picked it up. He accepted a written warning. The Complainant recalled that in February 2015 Chocolate Mallows had been left in boxes for staff in offices, presses and drawers. He was not informed of any general practice and assumed they were for open consumption. He recalled the loose sweets sitting in the crate in December 2015, which he again assumed were for staff consumption. He recalled a certain colleague telling him that he had seen others eat the sweets. The Complainant confirmed that he had taken sweets and went back to the office still eating the sweets, nobody picked him up on it. One colleague told him that he thought that it was the Respondents way of saying thanks. He understood that Recall products were left in the lane areas which were separate and distinct from the carte base in the ambient area. He wasn’t sure what else was in the crates. Nothing happened in the immediate aftermath of the sweets consumption until he was unexpectedly approached by his Section Leader some 6 days later. He was asked to review CC TV footage and explain what happened regarding the sweets in the crate. The Complainant was incredulous, looked at him and said really? The Complainant submitted hat he had eaten the sweets believing it was an approved practice. This explanation was rejected and he was placed on suspension immediately. On the way, back home, he texted seeking CC TV footage and a copy of the Returns terms and conditions. He did not receive these. He tried to give his side of the story in the Disciplinary hearing when he submitted that he believed it to be an authorised practice in terms of getting rid of excess stock. He was anticipating that his submissions would be put to his colleagues. He was expected to be invited back to comment on the findings of the Disciplinary hearing. On the day before the outcome meeting, he called Mr B saying that he was still very sick and sought a postponement for a couple of days. He understood that a different day would be scheduled. He was taken aback to receive confirmation of summary dismissal. The Complainant confirmed that everybody was updated on the employee handbook on an annual basis. He did not seek an appeal as he believed that the company was using the sweets event to get rid of him. The Complainant gave evidence of loss and mitigation and was currently subsisting on job seekers allowance. During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that he had not received an induction and was un familiar with the policies. He re-affirmed that he believed that the Boots issue amounted to a minor issue and not instructive in terms of how serious the company viewed things in that vein. He did not appeal as he was satisfied with the sanction. He had found it hard financially to obtain new boots and the boots had been worn by other staff. The complainant confirmed that he had taken sweets on three occasions on 4 December, 2016.In response to Counsels question on why did the complainant think it was okay to remove stock?, he answered that it had looked to him as if they had been given as a gift .There were no markings on the crate and he didn’t know why the crate was there .He had seen signs previously on “ Do not take “ and these signs were not attached to the crate .He confirmed that he had availed of sweets in that way in the past .He confirmed that he had seen others take sweets .He also recalled two occasions which he attributed as 2014 where presses were full of marshmallows and while not authorised to take them , he simply assume he could . The Complainant confirmed that he had not submitted a sick note to cover the deferred Disciplinary Meeting, he was not aware he needed to. He distinguished the “boots” issues from the “sweets “issue. He had anticipated receiving a second written warning but not a dismissal. He was the longest serving employee and saw no basis for the termination of his employment. His employment had been blemish free outside the boots and sweets issues. He was aware of his right of appeal. He did not accept that something was wrong and he knew that the company would not admit to doing wrong. The Complainant confirmed that he had applied for 29 jobs without success and confirmed that he had sought to leave in April 2016. The Complainant was aware of the location of the CC TV. He presumed that there was a written policy on returns. In his closing statements, the complainant’s representatives pointed to procedural flaws in the case, the complainant had sought documents which were denied. The complainant was not providing with statements from the staff who were interviewed. These staff saw him take and consume the product but did not stop him allowing him to conclude that it was a permitted practice. The status of the sweets was “discarded “. The Complainant was not provided with the outcome of the investigation prior to the disciplinary outcome. His request to postpone the meeting failed. He concluded by submitting that the complainant had not been inducted. There was a variation in policy for drivers and staff. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have given careful consideration to both parties submissions in this case which were aided by written submissions, site photographs, photos of product returned and maps of the warehouse. This helped me to gain an insight into the work location.
The Complainant has claimed that he was unfairly dismissed on January 10, 2017 and has not worked since that date. The Respondent disputed the claim and say that the dismissal was made on substantial grounds of gross misconduct against a backdrop of procedural fairness. It is not my function to determine whether what the complainant did was right or wrong, rather it is for me to determine whether the decision to dismiss was made within a band of reasonableness. In this I am guided by Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
Unfair dismissal.
6.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.
Section 6(4) of the Act provides some variations on this, through competence, qualifications, conduct.
Section 6(7) permits me to consider the reasonableness of the employer and whether Statutory Codes of Practice have been adhered to.
Both parties accept that the complainant was in possession of a 12-month written warning at the outset of the circumstances of this case. However, both parties expressed a different reaction to its placing in this case. For the complainant’s part, he had accepted the warning imposed and had rationalised the boots issue as one of necessity. He drew no analogy between the boots and that of the sweets.
From the respondent perspective, they saw it as a flagship event from which learning should have followed to avoid repetition.
The Complainant approached the December 4 ,2016 with a good work record save the written warning in April 2016. I established that he appeared to harbour some resentment surrounding the circumstances of his cessation in a supervisory role in 2014 which was expressed at several intervals during the hearing.
I accept that the Respondent promoted a high trust work environment and that it was not their intention to redistribute waste/damaged or disposed product to staff. I saw photos of a prior batch of product distributed in encapsulated form to staff post seasonal completion. I did not hear evidence that a system existed whereby random loose product were designated for staff supply. I heard that staff were seen eating sweets, I heard that staff assumed they could take the sweets as a gift but I did not hear of an authorised activity where this fitted into the standard working week. I have established that there was a marked difference between the ad hoc distribution in a situation of excess product and that of a product deemed for disposal.
For one, the excess products were presented in batch form and distributed from operational bases such as the canteen and offices. The sweets destined for disposal were loose, placed in a crate located on a concrete base. There cannot have been any confusion on their purpose given their isolated location separate to the greater area. Most importantly, there seemed to be an acceptance by all that the crate area was covered by CC TV.
I am bound to examine this case in terms of the reason given for dismissal and the procedural fairness relied on by the respondent.
The Respondent submitted that the complainants position was terminated for a breach of Section 9(d) of his contract of employment. This involved theft of merchandise. At first, I was struck by the small scale of the misdemeanour. It was clear that no harm was caused by the complainant’s actions. However, I then considered the submission made on the centrality of product integrity for the company and how it practiced a zero-tolerance policy in relation to consumption of product. There was some opaqueness surrounding the coffee drinking drivers, but I note that they were not direct employees and therefore not analogous.
I was struck by both party’s evidence on the consumption of the random sweets. The complainant freely admitted that he had consumed sweets on three separate occasions from 6 pm on 4 December. He chose to downplay the event and sought to contain it at the first meeting where the CC TV Footage was played twice. The Complainant then accepted his suspension and went home. later that evening, he requested CC TV Footage and further documents. When asked in preparation for the Disciplinary Hearing, I was struck that he did not repeat the request at that juncture. It seems to me that the Complainant was taking a long term look at his potential for legal action in this case from an early stage which acted to his detriment in defending it in real time.
I appreciate that he participated fully in the Disciplinary Meeting, albeit on foot of a one week delay through illness. Mr B picked up on his points raised on sweet consumption and assembled the group referred to by the complainant. Mr B did not complete an Investigation report and I found this to be an omission in an otherwise complaint disciplinary procedure. However, the complainant was on notice that his dismissal was under consideration.
I find that the Respondent ought to have furnished this to the complainant in advance of the Disciplinary outcome as the responses from those interviewed were inconsistent at times. However, this brings me to the central part of the case. The Complainant was invited by the Respondent to attend a Disciplinary outcome meeting on January 4 with a RSVP by January 6. The Complainant told me that he rang on 9 January to postpone the meeting, yet neither party had any record of the call. Given that this meeting had been introduced as a Disciplinary outcome meeting and given that the complainant was already on a written warning, I found this approach by him to be overly casual and careless .
I am satisfied that the Respondent undertook a full enquiry prior to the decision taken to dismiss the complainant. I am satisfied that the complainant was afforded representation, which he rejected and I believe that he was heard at Disciplinary hearing stage. He did not appear for the scheduled outcome meeting. Mr B submitted that he would prefer to have met him, but he felt that the complainant was playing games by ringing in sick at these two key intervals. I found that the failure by the complainant to observe the 6 January rsvp deadline to be damaging. I found no evidence that the complainant sought a rescheduling of the meeting on January 10. The respondent Policy outlines that a Follow up meeting should be held. I am satisfied that it was arranged but not completed.
Had the complainant attended this meeting or even raised his disquiet about it going ahead in his absence, I found there was sufficient good will in the system towards the complainant to facilitate a discussion on exploration of the outcome of the hearing to try at least to save his job. Mr C had undertaken a very in-depth discussion with the complainant during the Disciplinary hearing. I found his nonattendance fatal to his case. This was not remedied by his non-recourse to the pro-offered appeal.
The Complainant has an obligation to participate fully in all disciplinary procedures unless points of concern are raised to militate attendance. I found this case lacked the benefit of representation for the complainant during the pre-dismissal stage.
I was struck by the evidence of Mr C when he submitted that he had not taken statements from two of the complainant’s colleagues mentioned as potential corroborators in the complainant’s evidence. His statement was in turn read out for the complainant at the disciplinary hearing. I appreciated that complainants concerns on the duplication in Mr Bs role in the process. However, I found that Mr C carried out the suspension which was written up by Mr B. Mr B then went on to hold the Disciplinary hearing where the complainant confirmed that he had taken the sweets and had not offered mitigation.
I understand that the complainant stands aggrieved at not being provided with the Recalls Policy and a latter day arrival of the CC T V footage .The Complainant did not take issue with the footage . I cannot see how the complainant was damaged by the omission to give the Recalls Policy as extensive evidence was adduced at hearing and not disputed .
It is probably best practice in a company on the scale of the respondent to delineate the Disciplinary Process Manager from The Decision maker for dismissal. However, the complainant did not attend the end stage of his employment and I could not identify that he was compromised by the overlap in both earlier roles given the co -existence of MR C in the suspension an investigation stage .
I have found that there were substantial grounds governing this dismissal. The Respondent applied a consistent disciplinary process in front of three fellow accused. I am satisfied that the respondent adopted a myriad of fair procedures which were disturbed by the non-participation of the complainant in the Disciplinary outcome meeting. I would have liked to have seen a completed Investigation report furnished to the complainant but do not believe that in the face of his unedited admission, it would have altered matters. I am satisfied that the respondent was prepared to hear the complainant on mitigation and actions short of dismissal if he had appeared for the final meetings.
In the circumstances of this case, I find that the Respondent is permitted to rely on Section6(4) (b) of the Act where conduct permits a dismissal to be recorded as fair.
The Complainant representative advance case law to support the complainants case, however, this case law reflected a fully participant complainant and this is distinguished in this case.
In addition, I have found that while the misdemeanour was of a small scale, it came in complete opposition to the company practice and policy on discarded goods. I accept he prevalence of the zero tolerance on theft of product. I found that the complainant did not shrink from his admission of taking the sweets, he just did not share the respondent’s views on the breach of zero tolerance.
I find the claim for unfair dismissal to be unsuccessful.
Decision: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 found that the claim for unfair dismissal has not succeeded .
|
Dated: 20th June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal |