Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Accounts Payable Specialist

Fresh Food Wholesaler

Representatives

Conor O'Gorman  of IBEC

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-00043150-001

20/03/2021

The complainant says she was unfairly dismissed on 19 March 2021 whilst the respondent says she was dismissed for reasons amounting to gross misconduct.

The complainant requested this decision be anonomised as she does not want her current employer to be aware of the circumstances of the claim. The respondent had no objection to the decision being anonomised. I have considered the considered the complainant’s application in line with the approach of the WRC that decisions can only be anonomised where there are ‘special circumstances’. I am acceding to the complainant’s request to anonomise in the special circumstances that I have found she was unfairly dismissed and her current and future employment prospects may be effected if this decision does name the parties when published on the WRC website.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 27 November 2019 as an Accounts Payable Specialist and her employment was terminated on 19 March 2021.

On 5 March 2021 concerns surrounding a customer payment request made by the complainant on 1 March 2021 were highlighted to HR. It was alleged supporting documentation required to make the payment had been falsified by the complainant throughout email correspondence on 1 March 2021, prior to the complainant sending it to the payments team for processing. A formal investigation under the respondent’s formal disciplinary procedure was then initiated in order to establish the facts of the matter and took place via MS Teams on 11 March 2021.

On 10 March the complainant was sent an invitation to the formal investigation meeting the following day. The complainant requested clarification of the reason for the investigation, and this was provided. The investigation meeting was held on 11 March by one of the Group Financial Accountants. The complainant confirmed she was fully aware of the process and information required to make a payment. She said she was under pressure from the transport department at the time and input an invoice in the supplier statement to balance the payment request. She alleged that “after a few minutes I knew that was wrong and asked CB (payments team member) to ignore the statement”. However, it was only after the payments team had questioned the complainant further and the supplier had clarified that the invoice should not have been included that the complainant requested the payments team to ignore the incorrect statement.

In the investigation report the Investigator stated she was concerned that if the payments team accepted the file as sent by the complainant then the payment would have been processed at a cost to the company. At the end of the meeting, once it had been established the complainant had falsified a document, as opposed to an admin error occurring, the Investigator deemed the complainant a risk to the business and suspended her from duties with pay. The Investigator requested further information regarding the undue pressure the complainant alleged. She found the tone and frequency of correspondence from the transport department was appropriate, but acknowledged it can be difficult trying to train someone in and balance the workload at the same time. It was also noted that the person being trained to take over accounts from the complainant had offered assistance but it was declined by the complainant. An investigation report was issued on 16 March 2021 and the Investigator recommended the matter be put forward for a disciplinary meeting.

A disciplinary meeting was scheduled for 18 March 2021 with a Shared Services Manager. At the meeting the complainant maintained she did doctor the statement but had realised it was wrong soon after and instructed the payments team to disregard the doctored statement. However, the Shared Services Manager was not satisfied this was the case based on the sequence of events. She concluded the complainant was guilty of gross misconduct, in that she acted dishonestly and failed to demonstrate the respondent’s core value of integrity and breached the trust placed in her. Therefore, it was the Shared Services Manager’s view that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction, this was confirmed in writing to the complainant by letter dated 19 March 2021.

The complainant appealed her dismissal and an appeal hearing took place on 29 March 2021 with the Group Financial Controller. On 2 April 2021, having considered what the complainant put forward at her hearing, he issued a letter outlining he was satisfied that the complainant’s actions constituted gross misconduct and he upheld the decision to dismiss the complainant.

The respondent submits the complainant was dismissed by reason of her gross misconduct. Accordingly, her dismissal was not unfair as it resulted wholly from “the conduct of the employee”, in accordance with section 6(4)(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act. The respondent cites UD 843/1984 Looney & Co Ltd v Looney in saying it is their position that a “reasonable employer in the same position and circumstances” would have reached the same determination in the circumstances of this case. The respondent also cited UD 27/2004, Knox Hotel and Resort Ltd, saying the claimant’s actions “destroyed the respondent’s trust and confidence in the claimant and rendered the continuation of the employment relationship impossible, thereby justifying her summary dismissal.”

The respondent further submits that a full and fair investigation took place in accordance with fair procedures; the complainant was informed of the allegations against her, was afforded the right to representation, was given the opportunity to state her case, was informed of the possible outcome of the disciplinary hearing and was afforded the opportunity to appeal the disciplinary outcome.

The complainant submits she started working for the respondent in November 2019 as an Accounts Payable Specialist looking after Transport Suppliers until February 2021 when she was moved to Sundry Suppliers. During the end of February and throughout March 2021 she was training in a new team member on Transport. She was also taking over 165 new suppliers and working on a very different system for Sundry Suppliers and did not get much training at all. Then a new system was set up for sundry accounts and she was not trained on this system.

In the last week of February she, and the new person she was training, received an email requesting payment for a supplier. It turned out this supplier was not set up on the system so the complainant requested the supplier information and sent it to workflows for it to be set up. This delayed things. On 26 February she requested a statement from the supplier, which she received on 1 March but it was incorrect and she asked the supplier to amend it. In between this time she took it upon herself to input an invoice onto the statement and sent it to the payments team. She did it this way as she was under immense pressure, she was also getting hounded by the transport team to get this supplier paid, in order that containers would get released. Then she was informed by the supplier that the invoice in question was after getting credited and did not need to be paid. Within the hour the complainant emailed the payments team and told them to ignore the statement request she had sent, as it was incorrect. She submits the email which had the information about the invoice and the credit note had not been copied to her. She then sent over the correct statement and payment went through to the supplier and the containers were released.

The complainant says she got a meeting request on 10 March from HR with the title “Investigation into the falsifying of a document” and during this meeting she was suspended with pay. She says she was unprepared for the meeting as she only had 24 hours notice. She went to the disciplinary meeting on 18 March but says they just kept saying they could not trust me and felt she was not under pressure. The following day she was informed she was dismissed.

The complainant submits she was under extreme pressure on 1 March, as she was working two jobs, she made an error which was rectified and dismissal was completely unfair. She feels she was dismissed for trying to help the respondent get containers released.

The issue for decision by me is whether or not the complainant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent company. Section 6 of the 1977 Act provides:

“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.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

... (b ) the conduct of the employee”

The burden of proof rests with the respondent to establish the substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the complainant in this case. The test to determine the proportionality of a dismissal as a sanction is well settled. In the matter of Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, Noonan J. stated the following:

‘The correct test is: was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably take a different view.’

The respondent submits they carried a full investigation and disciplinary process in accordance with fair procedures. The decision to dismiss the complainant was because her conduct was dishonest, amounted to gross misconduct and meant all trust was broken. In these circumstances they assert their decision to dismiss the complainant was reasonable.

The complainant acknowledges that she did not follow correct procedures but says the pressure of work on her at the time was the reason for her conduct. She drafted the payment without making the checks which should be followed. She inserted a payment which was not on the invoice from the supplier but which she thought was ready for payment. This meant she did not take account of a credit note which had been issued to the supplier involved and the payment she processed was incorrect. The complainant says she did this because of pressure and in order to save time. I can find no attempt in the investigation, disciplinary hearing or appeal to look into if or why the credit note was not copied to the complainant and what impact this had.

In relation to the correspondence between the complainant and the transport team around this time the investigation concluded “the nature and tone of these emails seemed appropriate”. But went on to say “I can’t confirm/deny whether (the complainant) was under pressure at that time as I’m not aware of the overall workload that she was dealing with”. I can see no indication whether the complainant’s overall workload was considered by the disciplinary hearing or at the appeal stage, despite this being the one mitigating factor the complainant put forward at each and every stage. At the hearing the Group Shared Services Manager who carried out the disciplinary hearing gave evidence that the complainant said she felt under pressure but the respondent operates in a fast-paced environment and no pressure was put on the complainant in relation to this payment.

The respondent says they followed their procedures in investigating the incident and carrying out a disciplinary process and have cited Looney & Co. Ltd v Looney, UD 843/1984 which says “It is not for the Tribunal to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant, nor is it for the Tribunal to indicate or consider whether we, in the employer’s position, would have acted as he did in the investigation, or concluded as he did or decided as he did, as to do so would substitute our mind and decision for that of the employer. Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in the same position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided and to set this up as a standard against which the employer’s action and decision be judged.” I accept the respondent’s decision that the complainant did not follow correct procedures and the possible consequences of that warranted disciplinary action. Disciplinary action leads to some form of sanction which is decided on by taking all factors into account. In this case I find the respondent failed to do this fully by not looking closely at the mitigating factors put forward by the complainant; the overall pressure of work and not being copied on the credit note.

I also note that at every stage it was put to the complainant that she was dishonest. However, I am not aware of any benefit that would have accrued to the complainant if her incorrect payment request had not been found. She had submitted an incorrect payment request but no one looked at her intentions.

The correct test in this claim is to determine whether any reasonable employer would have dismissed the Complainant. I find that the investigation and disciplinary process did not fully consider the complainant’s motivation behind her actions or the mitigating factors put forward by her and no reasonable employer would have dismissed the complainant without doing that.

The respondent says their trust in the complainant was broken by her misconduct but I consider that a lessor sanction could have served the purpose of repairing that trust and preventing this misconduct from re-occurring. I find that the Respondent has not discharged the burden imposed by the Act and that the complaint is well-founded.

For the reasons stated above I find that the complainant’s claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act is well founded and I aware her compensation of €12,500; this being the amount of income lost from when she was dismissed in March until she found new employment in August, at the rate of her pay of €2,500 per month.