Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Bar Manager

Restaurant and Bar Owner

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as amended.

CA-00053288-001

14/10/2022

The Worker was employed as a bar manager  from 17 September 2021 to his dismissal on 8 August 2022 for gross misconduct. The Worker claims his dismissal was unfair, but he was bringing a claim under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 because  he did not have the requisite 12 months service to bring it under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.    

The Worker described how much he enjoyed working for the Employer up until the time he had an accident at work. He claims that the attitude of management then changed towards him. This came to a head after an incident on a  night when he had asked the bar staff to clean the bar after the night shift. He said that he had asked them a few times to do so but they refused, and it was left to him to clean up.

Four members of staff subsequently made statements relating to his alleged  aggressive behaviour on the night which then led to an investigation  and disciplinary hearing. He accepted that he may have used strong language on the night but that this was due to frustration with the fact that  his directions were not followed by staff members.  Statements were also  made subsequently, and taken into account by the Employer, without his right of reply.

The Worker acknowledged that there was an independent investigation carried out by an external legal firm and disciplinary process where he made statements. He accepts also that he was offered in-house representation with a colleague of his choice.

The Worker claims that the process was unfair because due cognisance was not given to his side of story and that, specifically CCTV footage which  would have supported his case, was not accessed by the Employer.

The employer did not attend the hearing.

In conducting my investigation, I have only  taken into account the relevant submission of the Worker  due to the non-attendance of the Employer. After some questioning of the worker, it was apparent to me that some of the fundamentals of the Code of Practice with regard to the conduct of disciplinary procedures under S.I.  146 of 2000 were carried out by the Employer i.e.  colleague representation and  separate investigation/disciplinary processes. The opportunity was also  afforded to the Worker to address the fundamental issue of his alleged behaviour on the night.

The Worker accepted that  there were four witnesses who contradicted his account of events, and also an acknowledgement  that he may have been somewhat aggressive on the night. There was also a reference, in correspondence produced at the hearing, to an apology from the worker in relation to the condition the bar was left in on the night in question. However, there were flaws as identified by the Worker in the non-production of CCTV footage with regard to the incident in question, and subsequent ancillary complaints e.g., that he had left a money safe door unopened. These issues were not addressed during the process. I find, therefore, that there was an element of unfairness in the process and from what was described to me, the decision to dismiss was somewhat disproportionate.

Having taken  account of the Worker’s submission, I conclude that  there was an unfair dismissal. However,  I believe there was an element of contribution by the Worker to his own dismissal. I must also factor in  his relatively short service. I recommend, therefore,  that the Employer pay the Worker €1,000 for unfair behaviour in respect of the dismissal process, which I believe is just and equitable compensation under the circumstances.

Industrial Relations Act 1969, Unfair Dismissal.