Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Business System Analyst

IT Company

Representatives

  Self-Represented

J.W. O’Donovan LLP

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-00051284-001

23/06/2022

The Complainant swore an affirmation at the outset of his evidence.

There were several witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent who all swore an Oath. These witnesses included the Area Manager, Business Manager and Employee Relations Lead.

Submissions and documentary evidence was exchanged by the parties.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 8 March 2017 and was terminated from his employment on 9 May 2022. It was his evidence that he was dismissed for gross misconduct. He stated he had a clean disciplinary record. The Complainant accepted the dismissal but felt the sanction was disproportionate.

The Complainant made heroic efforts to mitigate his loss with detailed documentary evidence to back up his assertions. He attended a number of interviews and during that time continued to education. This resulted in him obtaining a more senior position with an alternative employer despite the challenges of the Covid19 pandemic.  

The intense induction training process was outlined by the Respondent with the regular training updates received by the Complainant. Documentary evidence of same was submitted. The relevant purchasing policy was presented which contained three explicit conditions and required the Complainant to accept these conditions in advance of purchasing the equipment. Evidence that the Complainant accepted these conditions for each of the 10 products purchased.

The Complainant was invited to an investigation meeting which took place on 7 Mach 2022. A report was compiled and issued on 28 March 2022.  The Complainant was dismissed at the end of the disciplinary investigation following a disciplinary meeting on 5 April 2022 with the sanction applied following the meeting of 9 May 2022.  An appeal was heard on 15 May 2022 which ultimately upheld the sanction of dismissal.

Having carefully considered the evidence of both sides, I find the evidence all parties to be uncomplicated.  

I find the Respondent not only compiled with its own internal policies in with regard to the dismissal but each and every individual who were party to the disciplinary process were accurately aware and applied the principles of natural justice. This was uncontested by the Complainant who was equally candid throughout the hearing. 

In relation to the proportionality of the sanction of dismissal, I find in the circumstances the policies and procedures around the purchase of the equipment could not have been clearer. It is accepted by all parties that the Complainant was an excellent worker who had a clean record. While I find there was no intent to deceive whatsoever by the Complainant, objectively the activity was clearly suspicious which ought to have led him to question his actions. In conclusion, along with the clarity around the policies, I do not find that the sanction to disproportionate.

On this basis I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed from his employment.

Following a particular application from the Complainant I have decided to not to name the parties for a very specific reason to the circumstances of this case.

I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed from his employment.

Dismissal