Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Coordinator of an education project

Education service provider

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-00027436-001

02/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00027436-002

02/04/2019

The hearing into this complaint of unfair dismissal and failure to pay statutory notice was held over 2 days on the 9/7/2019 and the 12/11/2019.        

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in 1998 and was promoted on 18 January 2008 to the position of a coordinator of an education programme for early school leavers.

He was dismissed on 11 January 2019.

The complainant earned €5505 gross per month.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 2 April 2019.

CA-00027436-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The complainant at the outset advised that he had changed his representative. The complainant advised that he had submitted his complaint form to the WRC on the basis of advice received by his then representative. On the basis of advice to hand from his current representative, he now is seeking a decision from the adjudicator that he was unfairly dismissed and deserved no sanction. His remedy is reengagement and compensation for loss of earnings.

The complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed on 11 January 2019.

The sequence of events leading to the complainant’s dismissal began with a protected disclosure against the complainant on 29 June 2018 which made a number of charges against him. The complainant contends that the respondent decided prematurely and improperly, that the charges contained in the protected disclosure were worthy of an investigation and a referral to the Gardai. The complainant states that there was an inadequate examination and testing by the respondent of the charges. There was an absence of documentation substantiating the charges. This resulted in a faulty decision to have the charges investigated. The provenance of the allegations is cloudy. The complainant was not provided with an adequate opportunity to test the allegations. The complainant’s representative stated that it was odd that a disclosure could be made by a person who did not work alongside the complainant. The disclosure was given to the complainant’s line manager by another employee.

The investigation into the charges contained in the protected disclosure culminated in a recommendation that the complainant may have a case to answer in relation to the disclosures. The complainant’s representative indicates that the use of the word “may” indicates that discretion lay with the respondent. Notwithstanding the lack of certainty about the need to proceed further, the respondent instituted the disciplinary process at stage 4. This was handled unfairly. The complainant’s rights to a fair process was denied. He was interviewed on27 November 2018   at a disciplinary hearing. He was dismissed on January 2019. There was no internal appeal allowed from the dismissal.

The Investigation into the protected disclosures.

The investigation by the investigator of the disclosures was faulty and below the standard of fairness to which the complainant was entitled. The investigator’s report fails to show the dates of the meeting with the complainant or who was in attendance. The investigator refers to a meeting with 4 members of staff in July. He failed to provide minutes of these meetings to the complainant. The complainant states that the investigator told him he spoke to 6 persons and not the four as stated by the respondent. The complainant has no direct knowledge of how many people the investigator spoke to. No dates of when the alleged wrongdoing was committed were provided to the complainant. There was concealment of evidence. The complainant’s representative stated that the complainant had made a data access request. In response he got 83 pages which were redacted, and 12 pages were semi redacted. This is germane to the investigation process

The investigator failed to provide him in advance with documents concerning the procurement of building services and chose ,instead, to spring them on him at the meeting on 18 September. The complainant states that any answers which he gave to the investigator were dismissed. The investigator said to him this is what you have done, and you are responsible for it.

The respondent hid behind the protected disclosure process to deny the complainant the degree of transparency to which he was entitled. The respondent didn’t disclosure the identity of the person making the disclosure. Contrary to what the respondent is arguing, the identity of the person making the complaint is not protected in these circumstances.

Disciplinary hearing

As a result of the investigation into the Protected disclosure being the first step in the chain of events which led to his dismissal, the allegations which first appeared in the disclosure yet ended in the disciplinary process were based on hearsay. The disclosure process was prematurely and improperly used as a device to load up a case against the complainant. The investigation into the charges contained in the protected disclosure culminated in a recommendation that the complainant may have a case to answer in relation to the disclosures, yet the disciplinary process was activated against the complainant.

The first time the term’ misappropriation of funds’ was put to the complainant was at the hearing on the 27/ 11/2019

The complainant     addressed the elements of the protected disclosure which developed into charges in the disciplinary process.

Missing items

In relation to missing items and in response to cross examination, the complainant confirmed that he gave 10 guitars to a charity. He has no record of this transaction. He accepted that he should have kept records. He accepted in questioning that a snooker table, donated to the centre, appeared in a for sale advert on an online market payable to a private account. He states he gave it away. He cannot remember to whom. He kept no record. He accepted in questioning that retaining the money from the sale of these items as opposed to lodging them with the respondent’s account t was improper. The respondent wrongly deduced that the discovery of a sum of money in the respondent’s safe, presumed to have been placed there by the complainant and approximating to the value of missing items in the respondent’s centre, was evidence that it was the complainant who had placed the money there after he had been placed on protective leave . There is no evidence that the complainant put money back in the safe.

Funding for student tours.

In relation to funding for trips for student., the complainant accepted that sometimes he paid for these student trips out of petty cash, sometimes students paid for trips. He kept no record differentiating between the petty cash contribution and the students’ own contribution to the trips.

Private grinds for profit,

The investigator decided that the complainant had no case to answer.

Petty cash procedures not in compliance with the respondent’s policy

The complainant’s representative states that it is noteworthy that the investigator’s statement in the September Report stating that the complainant “may” have a case to answer in relation to discrepancies in petty cash led the respondent to embark on a disciplinary process when it was merely a question that he may have had a case to answer.

Alleged preferential treatment for the complainant’s wife.

The complainant’s wife reached an agreement with the Regional Coordinator to work from home on reduced hours. The complainant stated that he was not required to monitor his wife’s working hours. He states that his job description does not expressly provide for record keeping of staff. In response to a question as to the amount of money being currently repaid to the respondent by his wife, he stated that he did not know how much his wife was repaying to the respondent in relation to overpayment for hours actually worked. The investigator decided that he may have had a case to answer.

Vending machine.

The complainant accepts that records were not kept of vending machine purchases.

He states he did not cross examine at the disciplinary hearing as that was the advice to hand at the time.

The complainant stated he has no recollection of having been previously provided with policies concerning financial matters.

The investigator did not find that the complainant had benefited personally

The complainant’s representative submitted that a person other than the CEO should have conducted the disciplinary hearings. The respondent CEO commissioned the Investigation Report. The fact that the CEO referred the disclosures to An Gardai showed a lack of an open mind.

The complainant’s right to a fair process was denied. He was interviewed on 27 November 2018 at a disciplinary hearing. He was dismissed on 11 January 2019. There was no internal appeal allowed from the dismissal. The disciplinary procedure provides for 2 persons. A second person was not present.

Loss.

The complainant commenced in another position on 30 January 2019. It ended on 17 July 2019. His gross weekly earning in that position were €500, a loss of €711 a week. He took up a further position on 18 July 2019.It is ongoing. He is earning €961 a week., amounting to a loss of €250 from 18 July

CA-00027436-002. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The complainant is entitled to his paid statutory notice

CA-00027436-001.Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The respondent denies that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.

He was dismissed for gross misconduct after a thoroughgoing investigation and disciplinary hearing conducted in accordance with fair procedures.

The complainant was employed as a coordinator of an early school leavers education programme. His job description saw him having responsibility for the day to day management of the centre, supervision of staff, staff development, team formation, leadership and budgeting and financial management within the financial framework of the respondent’s system, management of the premises and carrying out the lawful orders of the CEO

The respondent received a protected disclosure on 29 June under its protected disclosure policy against the complainant. The charges identified included

That he facilitated reduced hours and enhanced paid leave facilities for his wife,

Petty cash procedures not in compliance with the respondent’s policies,

providing maths grinds during his working hours to external students and for a fee.

Procurement irregularities,

Lack of transparency concerning the management of cash from the vending machine,

Missing property from the centre in which the complainant was employed. Disposal of the respondent’s property in contravention of the respondent’s procedures,

The respondent advised at the hearing that the missing property from the centre in which the complainant was employed, included bicycles, steppers, guitars, fridge which had disappeared from the respondent’s premises but were listed on adverts.ie. with the charges for the items to be paid into a private account.

The Director of Finance and the HR Manager informed the complainant on 2 July at a meeting that a number of finance – related matters had been put to them under the respondent’s protected disclosure Policy. The complainant was advised that the matters had been transferred to an Gardai and that the respondent would investigate the matters under the Protected Disclosure Policy. On 2 July he was placed on paid protected leave, provided with details of the EAS and The Protected Disclosure policy. He was given a copy of the protected disclosures on 6 July.

The CEO commissioned the investigation into the protected disclosure. He referred the issues to the Gardai. He did not have any choice once an alleged crime was reported to him.

On 6 July an independent investigator, a retired Education Officer from a sister organisation, was appointed to conduct the investigation into the disclosures.

On 20 August the respondent advised the complainant that he should return to work in September. Meetings between the complainant and the investigator were held on 14 August, 18 September at which the complainant was represented. The investigator concluded in his report on in September 2018 that the complainant may have /had a case to answer in respect of non- compliance with the respondent’s petty cash policies or procedures, non- compliance with the respondent’s policies on disposal of the Centre’s property , procurement irregularities, preferential treatment of his wife, and lack of transparency regarding the vending machine.

What prompted the initiation of the disciplinary process was the investigator’s conclusions in the September Report. The respondent CEO convened a disciplinary meeting conducted in accordance with stage 4 of the agreed disciplinary procedure on 27 November 2018. This stage deals with alleged gross misconduct. The respondent was entitled to activate the procedure at stage 4 as the actions of the complainant amounted to gross misconduct. The complainant was legally represented at the disciplinary hearing. The complainant did not deny any of the allegations. He stated he did not implement the correct policies and apologised for this failures.

The respondent set out his conclusions on the addressed the disclosures considered by the investigator and which had prompted the activation of the disciplinary process.

Failure to apply petty cash operational procedures.

Failure to use Invoices. The CEO stated that there were no receipts for goods sold. The CEO advised that the procedures for lodging invoices was unchanged since 2011. The complainant was making claims for goods all along from the accounts department so was familiar with the procedures. The complainant and all managers had received regular training in in lodgement of invoices and account procedures. All cash received or disbursed by an employee in the centre is required to be recorded. This was not done.

The complainant at the disciplinary hearing on the 27 November admitted he had made mistakes concerning his failure to apply policies correctly. He accepted that he had processed invoices incorrectly and managed cash in the centre incorrectly.

Disposal of the centre’s property and not following authorisation policy and procedures.

Details of the missing items came to light because of an advertisement of the items for a price on a website, in which a private account was used. The items listed for sale included bicycles, steppers, guitars, and a fridge which had disappeared from the respondent’s premise. Approximately €2000 – a sum approximating the value of the sale of such items -was found in the safe after the complainant had been placed on protective leave. It was not in the safe prior to the matters being put to the complainant. In relation to the complainant’s statement that there are 2 keys to the safe in the centre, the CEO accepted this. He does not know who has the second key. The coordinator, the complainant, should know that as he had custody of them.  

Procurement.

The complainant is required to get quotations from a range of construction companies when initiating any construction projects such as repair, upgrading and maintenance. Instead of following this policy and acquiring a number of quotations for one construction project, the complainant commissioned the same builder to undertake a building project subdivided into 11 different separate projects and paid in 11 separate instalments at a cost which enabled him to circumvent the requirement to get a number of quotations. The complainant did training on 22/11/2017 in procurement guidelines and budgeting.

Preferential Reduced hours for the complainant’s wife.

Working hours.

Preferential treatment was afforded to the complainant’s wife. Her contracted hours were 13.5, she reached an agreement with the regional co-Ordinator to work from home and have less hours in the centre. Yet she continued to receive full pay though she only worked 40% of her timetabled hours. This was known to the complainant who was her manager . She was paid for full hours which she did not work. She was also paid for leave in excess of her contractual entitlement to 30 days per annum. She was paid teacher holiday entitlements in breach of her contract. The complainant’s wife who is still an employee is repaying the sum of €50-60,000 to the respondent for overpayment for leave and actual hours worked. The complainant facilitated this wrongful overpayment of wages and holiday entitlements.

The respondent states that the agreement reached between the regional coordinator and the complainant’s wife to work from home and to reduce her working hours was done with the full knowledge of the coordinator. The respondent confirmed that the regional coordinator did not document the agreement for reduced hours, working from home and corresponding salry payments and he is not happy with that. He holds the complainant, the coordinator, responsible for reviewing and identifying hours of staff for payment of salary.

Vending machines.

No proper records were kept for money paid or items placed into vending machines, so it is not possible to quantify the loss in the vending machines

The complainant was dismissed on 11 January. He was offered the agreed external appeals option.

The CEO in cross examination advised that the decision to dismiss the complainant was based on his failure to comply with all four policies.

The CEO in cross examination advised that while none of the agencies conducting audits on the respondent’s finances uncovered any concerns prior to the protected disclosures, the concerns were discovered after the audits had been conducted and the anomalies were reported to the relevant Agency – THE Controller and Auditor General. Anomalies were also reported to the Gardai.

On being questioned by the complainant’s representative, the respondent declined to disclose the identity of the complainant making the disclosure, the number of people involved in uncovering the concerns, if the person making the disclosure had worked alongside the complainant or provide any detail which would reveal the identity of the person making the disclosure. The respondent cited section 16(1) if the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 in support of their decision not to disclose the identity of the person making the disclosure. The senior person who uncovered the missing items had not worked alongside the complainant for years and passed the concerns on the person who actually made the disclosure.

The respondent CEO denies that he behaved aggressively towards the complainant at the disciplinary hearing.

The respondent states that they acted in accordance with their own policies.

Fair procedures.

The matter was fully and fairly investigated in accordance with S.I 146/2000.The complainant was fully aware of the matters which led to his dismissal. He was given an opportunity to respond to each of the allegations. He was legally represented at the disciplinary hearing on the 27 November. The parties involved in the decision-making process were unconnected with the investigation into the protected disclosures. All relevant evidence and submissions were factored into the respondent’s final decision.

It was reasonable of the respondent on the balance of probabilities to conclude that the complainant’s actions amounted to gross misconduct. The complainant during the disciplinary process on 27 November acknowledged that he had done wrong and that a sanction was merited. The disciplinary code clearly provides for the classification of misappropriation of funds, theft, fraud, deliberate falsification of data, serious abuse / misuse of the respondent’s property / equipment /materials as gross misconduct. The respondent was unable to trust the complainant because of his actions or to continue to work for them. The respondent is entitled to expect that staff employed would be trustworthy and would not carry out acts of misconduct so serious as the acts carried out by the complainant. IBEC stated that the respondent could only identify the appropriate disciplinary sanction based on what was presented to him on the day. The respondent having considered his evidence at the hearing on the 27 November 2018 proceeded to dismiss him on 11 January 2019. He was advised of the appeal process which was a complaint to the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977,

The respondent contends that the dismissal was a reasonable response. In support of this the respondent refers to Moore V Knox Hotel and Resort UD/27/2004 where it was held that dismissal was a reasonable sanction in the particular circumstances where the complainant’s actions had destroyed the respondent’s trust and confidence in the claimant. Her dismissal was found to have been justified.

The respondent also relies on the decision of Mullane v Honeywell Aerospace Ireland Ltd, UD 111/2008, The tribunal stated

“The Tribunal is not required to determine whether the claimant did or did not carry out the alleged act. The tribunal’s function is not to establish whether the respondent has proven that the dismissal was not unfair, having regard to the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2001….. that the alleged act was fairly investigated and that the investigation respects the rights of the complainant, that the conclusion that the offending act had been perpetrated by the claimant was reasonable on the balance of probabilities and that the dismissal was a proportionate response within the band of sanctions which could be imposed by a reasonable employer”

The respondent also refers to the case of Looney and Co Ltd v Looney, UD 843/1984.

The respondent states there is ample authority for the proposition that an imperfect disciplinary process does not taint the process so as to render it an unfair dismissal.

CA-00027436-002.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The respondent relies on section 8 of the Act of 1973 as amended which allows an employer to terminate without notice in cases of gross misconduct.

In addition, the complainant’s disciplinary procedure states that an employee on being dismissed will receive his statutory notice entitlements “except in circumstances justifying immediate termination of a staff members’ employment”

The respondent asks the adjudicator to reject this complaint.

CA-00027436-001.Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

I am required to establish if the complainant was unfairly dismissed.

Relevant Law.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 states that

“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 indicates what type of substantial grounds justify a dismissal and states “…………. the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act, not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one of the following

a) ……………..

b)     the conduct of the employee”

The respondent contends that the complainant’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct and merited the sanction of dismissal.

In Mullane v Honeywell Aerospace Ireland Ltd, UD 111/2008, The tribunal stated

“The Tribunal is not required to determine whether the claimant did or did not carry out the alleged act”.

But I am required to consider whether on the basis of all the evidence submitted the respondent in all of the circumstances had reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations levelled against the complainant were justifiable and manifested conduct which warranted a dismissal.

In Danceglen Ltd T/A Dunboyne Castle & Spa v Fernando Riberio, UDD1839, the Labour Court stated

“It is not for the Court to substitute its view for that of the Respondent in this case. It is rather for the Court to determine whether the decision to dismiss was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer in the same circumstances.”

Did reasonable grounds exist for the respondent to conclude that the misconduct warranted dismissal?

The allegations against the complainant started life in the protected disclosure process. They were allegations of ‘Relevant Wrongdoings’ in accordance with the Protected Disclosure Act 2014. The respondent’s policy of 2016 requires that an employee who is the subject of a disclosure is entitled to fair procedures. The evidence does not support the proposition that this was a precipitous, untested move. The respondent complied with their own policy. They were obliged to take the steps which they did. I do not accept that it was an improper exercise to commission an investigation given what had been disclosed to the respondent. I do not accept that the respondent was obliged to approach the disclosures from the point of view that they were bogus and needed to be disproven. I do not find that the evidence supports the contention that the investigation into the disclosures was conducted so unfairly as to undermine the respondent’s right to examine these disclosures in a disciplinary process.

The complainant made no suggestion of malicious intent on the part of the person making the disclosure nor asked that that should be examined. The notes of the protected disclosure investigatory meetings do not contain a denial by the complainant of the allegations, merely ignorance on his part of the correct procedures or puzzlement at how matters developed.

Based on the investigator’s report of September 2018, I find the decision by the respondent to transfer the allegations into the disciplinary process was a valid choice. I do not find that his commissioning of an investigation under the protected disclosure policy rendered him ineligible to conduct the disciplinary hearings. He had engaged an external person to conduct the investigation. It was not the CEO’s conclusions which led to the disciplinary hearing, it was the investigator’s.

I find that complainant was fully aware of the charges, that the charges were thoroughly examined by the respondent, the complainant was given an opportunity to respond to each of the charges and he was legally represented at the hearing on the 27 November.

The complainant at the disciplinary hearing did not deny the allegations; he accepted he had failed to comply with procedures and apologised.

Basis for the dismissal

Failure to apply petty cash operational procedures.

I find that the complainant failed to explain how he managed the petty cash system or how it was used and for what purposes. I find that the complainant displayed a total disregard for his obligation to demonstrate that the respondent’s funds were used for the purposes for which they were intended, He showed a total disregard for the need for transparency concerning income and expenditure.

Disposal of the centre’s property and not following authorisation policy and procedures.

The complaint was unable to give a credible explanation for how the respondent’s property disappeared from the premises. I find on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s explanation that the complainant, unauthorised, decided to put up items of the respondent’s property for sale, retained the money for such sales for a period and that the value of the sale appeared in the respondent’s safe without any explanation after he had been placed on protective leave is reasonable.

Procurement.

The complainant accepted that he failed to comply with the procedures to get a number of quotations. He contrived an arrangement to circumvent the need for quotations.

Preferential Reduced hours for the complainant’s wife.

Working hours.

I find the complainant’s attempts to disassociate himself from any responsibility for hours worked and for corresponding salary payable to employees whom he supervised in the centre to be unconvincing. I accept the respondent’s conclusions that the complainant facilitated the arrangement whereby his wife could have reduced hours without any reduction in salry and that, furthermore, she could benefit from paid leave entitlement way in excess of her contractual entitlements.

Vending machines.

I accept the respondent’s conclusion about an unknown loss from the vending machines and that this is attributable to the complainant.

On the basis of the evidence, I find that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct of the complainant and outlined in their submission had occurred and amounted to gross misconduct as outlined in the respondent’s disciplinary procedure. I accept that the respondent therefore had reasonable grounds to believe that the dismissal was not unfair. The adduced evidence shows that this trust and confidence was misplaced if not abused. I find substantial grounds as set out in section 6 (4) of the Acts of 1977 as amended existed to justify the dismissal. I do not find the dismissal to be substantively unfair.

Conduct of the employer.

Section 5 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 allows for regard to be had to the conduct of the employer in determining if a dismissal is unfair.

The respondent’s disciplinary procedure provides for two persons, nominated by the CEO, to investigate allegations of gross misconduct. The CEO and the HR manager attended the disciplinary hearing on 27 November. It does not indicate who the CEO’s nominees are. But the minutes indicate that it was the CEO alone who conducted the hearing. A second person can act as an extra eye to ensure that the complainant is afforded fairness. The Labour court in UD 1933 Slonecczko Limited trading as Breadski Brothers v Agnieszka Kopacz stated

“there are certain fundamental requirements of fair procedures that cannot be dispensed with regardless of the particular circumstances that arise in an individual disciplinary matter. They include: (i) the requirement to make to make the employee who is the subject of the investigation aware of all the allegations against him or her at the outset of the process; (ii) the requirement that an employer who has published a disciplinary procedure to its employees follow those procedures scrupulously when conducting a disciplinary process”;

I acknowledge that the respondent’s disciplinary procedure- a trade union – management agreement- was drawn up in good faith. I note it was scheduled for review to take account of developments. I find the absence of an appeals mechanism outside of what is available under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015 runs counter to the General PrinciplesS.1 146/2000 which provides as follows:

” The essential elements of any procedure for dealing with grievance and disciplinary issues are that they be rational and fair, that the basis for disciplinary action is clear, that the range of penalties that can be imposed is well-defined and that an internal appeal mechanism is available.”

The absence of an appeal against a decision to dismiss was one factor in rendering the dismissal unfair in UD 954/2013. The importance of an appeal mechanism prior to invoking a statutory entitlement has been acknowledged in many decisions. In an Employee v An Employer ADJ 0000381 on the subject of appeals, the Adjudication Officer stated:

‘An appeal is not just an afterthought or a procedure that must be completed as a matter of course. It is a very important part of the disciplinary process and the greater the sanction that has been imposed the greater its importance. An appeal allows a dismissed employee the last chance to make their case, highlight any mitigating factors and seek protection for faulty procedures or disproportionality of sanction”.

I find that there were procedural defects. I find that the respondent’s decision to engage just one person and not the prescribed 2 persons provided for in the disciplinary procedure together with the absence of an appeal mechanism short of exercising one’s statutory rights under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 renders the dismissal to be unfair on procedural grounds.

I find the complainant contributed to a huge extent to his own dismissal.

I decide to award him the sum of €2,422, equal to 2 weeks salary

CA-00027436-002.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

I have found that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct. Section 8 of the Act states

“Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any employer or employee to terminate a contract of employment without notice or because of misconduct”.

As I accept that there was misconduct, I do not uphold this complaint.

CA-00027436-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €2422 in redress for this breach of the Act of 1977 as amended.

CA-00027436-002.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

Imperfect procedures. Unfair Dismissal