Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Raymond  Hammett

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU

Keith Irvine LGMA

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-00054832-001

02/02/2023

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

CA-00054832-002       WITHDRAWN 28/09/2023

02/02/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00054832-003 WITHDRWAN 28/09/2023

02/02/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00054867-001

03/02/2023

The complainant worked for the respondent from 10/04/2002 until his dismissal 05/08/2022.  He was dismissed due to absence from work and a refusal to return to work until his complaint against his manager was dealt with.   He was paid €908.50 gross per week (Net €805.00).  He submitted his complaints to the WRC on 02/02/2023.  During the hearing complaints CA-00054832-002 and CA-00054832-003 were withdrawn.

The complainant in this case did not give any evidence.  It was submitted on his behalf that he lodged a grievance in May 2021 in relation to lack of promotion opportunities, fuel allowance and victimization.  These complaints were not investigated, and he got a reply some four months later to confirm that his complaints were not upheld.  It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that he was being bullied by a supervisor, Mr A.  While it is accepted that the complaint may have lacked specific details the respondent made no effort to meet and clarify any aspect of the complaints with the complainant.  As he was finding the behaviour of Mr A unbearable, he was considering his options.  He saw an opportunity in October 2021 when the respondent announced details of a Short Working Year Scheme (SWY) which provided for employees to take a three-month break from work.  The complainant saw this as a welcome opportunity, and he applied for it.  His application was refused immediately as he did not apply within the appropriate time frame relevant to his intended starting date.  He was told to apply again, and he did so and specified the dates between 25/01/2022 and 26/4/2022.  This application was deemed lost by the respondent and he applied on a third occasion.  As there was no response on this occasion he assumed that all was now in order.

The complainant made his arrangements and started his SWY break on 25/01/2022.  On his first day of absence, he was contacted to say that his application for the SWY was not approved, and he was expected back at work.  The complainant did not return to work, and he requested details of why his application was not approved.  He did not receive this but was invited to a disciplinary meeting which he attended along with this trade union representative.  At this meeting the complainant outlined that given the history of his applications for the SWY he assumed that his application was approved when no one contacted him to say otherwise.  He also submitted that 13 weeks was not a long time and given the lack of work provided to him he could not see any problem in having this leave approved.  The complainant also outlined the difficulties he was experiencing with Mr A and provided examples of the behaviour he was complaining about.  His trade union representative, Mr Jim Byrne, outlined that the matters complained of were serious and should be investigated under the respondent’s Dignity at Work policy.   Mr Jim Byrne gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing in relation to his involvement in this matter prior to his retirement.

The complainant then lodged a formal grievance against Mr A on 16/03/2022.  He received confirmation of a written warning on 22/03/2022 and he was invited to another disciplinary meeting on 29/03/2022.  On 30/03/2022 the complainant was requested to provide more details in relation to his grievance against Mr A and to decide what policy he wished to pursue this matter.

The complainant did not attend the disciplinary meeting on 06/04/22 as he wanted the respondent to investigate his complaints.  The complainant then delivered his handwritten notes outlining his grievance.  These were rejected by the respondent as being difficult to read or understand.  The complainant then provided a more detailed typed version of the complaint on 12/05/2022. 

The complainant was then invited to an investigation meeting on 27/05/2022 in relation to his continued absence. At this meeting the complainant outlined that he had tried to return to work but found that he was unable to do so under the current conditions and the outlined that he would not be returning under these conditions.  The investigator also noted that the complainant had lodged a separate complaint and that the complainant felt that the two issues were linked.

The complainant was then invited to a third disciplinary meeting which he attended along with his then shop steward, Mr Adam Byrne.  Mr Adam Byrne have evidence on affirmation of his involvement in this matter since 05/05/2022.

Arising from this meeting the chairman then submitted a report to the Director of Housing.  This report contained a background to the case and the purpose of the disciplinary hearing.  The report did not recommend or make any decision in relation to the disciplinary hearing.  Instead, it requested the Director of Housing to make a decision.  It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that this represents a fundamental flaw in the respondent’s process whereby a decision maker did not meet with the complainant to hear his side and to outline his concerns about the reason for his continued absence.   The Director of Housing then issued a recommendation to Mr Stephen Brady, Director of Corporate Affairs,  recommending a dismissal but failed to note that the complainant was ready to return to work if he did not have to report to Mr A.  The complainant was then issued with a letter from the Director of Housing that he had issued a recommendation to the Director of Human Resources to dismiss the complainant.     The decision to dismiss was formally communicated to the complainant by Mr Stephen Brady on 05/08/2022.  The complainant appealed this decision, but he was not granted an appeal hearing.  The complainant was advised on 15/08/2022 that his appeal was not successful.

Approximately one month later the complainant received notification that the respondent would investigate his grievance under the Dignity at Work policy.  A further month elapsed, and the complainant was invited to an investigation meeting scheduled for 26/10/2022.  The complainant did not attend as he felt disillusioned by the lack of action from the respondent and at that stage, he lost all trust and confidence in the respondent’s good faith and duty of care.  However, it was confirmed on behalf of the complainant that at no stage did he withdraw his complaint.

A number of legal submissions were opened on behalf of the complainant. The case of Samuel J Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union [1997] IEHC 137 where the High Court set out the basic principles of fair procedures:

“Where a question of unfair dismissal is in issue, there are certain premises which must be established to support the decision to terminate employment for misconduct:

a.   Where the Complainant …. should state the complaint, factually, clearly and fairly without any innuendo or hidden inference or conclusion.

b.   The employee should be interviewed, and his version noted and furnished to the deciding authority contemporaneously with the complaint and again without comment.

c.    The decision of the deciding authority should be based on the balance of probabilities flowing from the factual evidence and in the light of the explanation offered.

d.   The actual decision, as to whether a dismissal should follow, should be a decision proportionate to the gravity of the complaint, and of the gravity and effect of dismissal on the employee.

e.    Put very simply, principles of natural justice must be unequivocally applied”.

The case of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] 26 E.L.R. 229 the High Court observed that:

“(1) the Court cannot substitute its own judgement on the reasonableness of dismissal for that of the employer; the question is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned (…)

(2) An assessment of the reasonableness and proportionality of the employer’s response must have regard to the surrounding circumstances, including the impact of the conduct on the employer as against the impact of the dismissal on the employee”.

It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that in this case the main focus is “on the fairness of the process related to dismissal of our member.  The respondent’s disregard to the fair procedures was of such an extent that regardless of the grounds justifying the dismissal or not, the dismissal is unfair”.   The evidence in that regard is clear, the person who made the decision to dismiss the complainant, Mr Brady, was not the same person who conducted or was involved in the disciplinary hearing.  The basics of the fairness of the process were fundamentally infringed.

In relation to the complaint of penalisation seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, it was submitted on behalf of the complainant and without prejudice to the complainant under the Unfair dismissals Act that the complainant was penalised for making his complaint against Mr A when the respondent failed to initiate the relevant process and to investigate and address his complaint.  He alerted the respondent in May 2021 that he was being treated inappropriately by Mr A but the respondent did not act on it.  While the initial complaint was vague the respondent did not meet with the complainant to seek clarification and issued a decision four months later.  In March 2022 the respondent was again alerted by the complainant, and this was the reason for his absence.  On this occasion the respondent decided to   keep asking the complainant for unnecessary clarifications while at the same time it moved swiftly ahead with its disciplinary process.  The delay of six months allowed the disciplinary process to be completed and it was only after this process concluded that the respondent started the investigation.  The result of this was that the respondent failed to ensure that the complainant had a safe place of work, and the respondent did not review or provide any reassurance to the complainant that he would be provided with a safe place of work pending the outcome of the investigation process.

It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the respondent’s failed to recognise that the complainant had lodged a serious bullying complaint, and this was a “fundamental factor” contributing to his reluctance to return to work under the same supervisor.  The respondent’s primary focus was on disciplining the complainant rather than addressing the underlying bullying concerns.  In that context alone, the dismissal of the complainant should be deemed unfair.

The respondent raised a preliminary matter in relation to the fact that the complainant is seeing to have a complaint of unfair dismissal heard under the Unfair Dismissals Act and at the same time bringing a complaint in relation to penalisation (dismissal) heard under the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act.  In that context Section 27 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 states that: “(5) If penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (3), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 20-01, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Part and under those Acts”.

The respondent submits the facts of this case are that the complainant was absent from work on unauthorised leave from 24/01/2023 and that his application for the Shorter Working Year for that period was not approved.  He was contacted on several occasions and requested to return to work, but he refused to do so.  There is no doubt that the complainant was always aware of the allegation of unauthorised absence from work.  As the complainant continued with his unauthorised absence the respondent held a disciplinary hearing and he attended accompanied by his trade union representative.  The disciplinary hearing found that he was on unauthorised absence, and he was issued with a First Written Warning.  As his absence continued, he was invited to a subsequent disciplinary hearing, and he was issued with a Final Written Warning. 

The complainant remained on unauthorised absence and an investigation was held and then a disciplinary hearing.  At this point the complainant confirmed that he would not return to work. He was then procedurally dismissed due to his ongoing absence.  The complainant appealed this sanction, and the decision to dismiss the complainant from 05/08/2022 was upheld.

It was submitted that the respondent followed fair procedures and natural justice in relation to the termination of the complainant’s employment and that when all the circumstances are considered the sanction was appropriate.  Any other reasonable employer would have taken the same action.  It was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that their procedures were fair and aligned with the code as outlined in S.I. 146/2000.

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant “contributed fully and significantly to his dismissal due to his ongoing and continuous absence”. 

The respondent also noted that the complainant failed to provide any evidence of his attempts to secure alternative employment and mitigate his loss.  The respondent notes that UDD2336 confirms the requirements in relation to the requirements to mitigate one’s loss.

Evidence was given by Mr Stephen Brady who is Director of Corporate Affairs with the respondent.  His role in the dismissal of the complainant arose at the end of the process.  His role was to review the documentation to ensure that there was a fair process which was aligned with the procedures.   The authority to dismiss is delegated to him and Mr Brady confirmed that he was the person who made the decision to dismiss the complainant.  Mr Brady outlined that he had considered other actions short of dismissal but as the complainant was refusing to return and the previous warnings had no effect, he was left with no option but to consider dismissal.  Mr Brady also confirmed that he took account of the complainant’s 20 years’ service, but the complainant continued to refuse to engage.

Mr Brady was cross examined by the complainant’s representative.  Mr Brady confirmed that he did not attend any disciplinary hearing in relation to the complainant and he also confirmed that he did not meet with the complainant at any stage in relation to this matter.  Mr Brady outlined that he made the decision based on the recommendation of the Director of Services.  Mr Brady confirmed that this recommendation was not sent to the complainant.  Mr Brady also stated that he consulted the complainant’s file and there was nothing relevant on the file.  Mr Brady did note that the complainant had lodged a complaint against his line manager. 

It was put to Mr Brady that the recommendation which was issued to him did not contain anything about the complainant’s ongoing issue with his line manager and he confirmed that was correct.  Mr Brady confirmed that he did not speak with the complainant as part of this process.  His role was based on the fact that the decision to dismiss was a delegated function under the provisions of the Local Government Acts 1925-2014.  Mr Brady confirmed that the respondent’s procedures also allow for the decision to dismiss to be taken by an appropriate Director. 

It was put to Mr Brady that when he reviewed the documentation leading up to the dismissal of the complainant, he must have become aware that the complainant had given an explanation for his absence at the disciplinary hearing on 11/03/2022 which was that he did not want to return to work due to the issues with his supervisor.  Mr Brady confirmed that he was aware of this but was not able to recall the detail. Mr Brady also confirmed that he was not aware that the complainant had stated on a few occasions that he would return to work if he did not have to work with his supervisor.  Mr Brady was asked if he formed the opinion that the complainant was a good employee having reviewed his file.  Mr Brady noted that he “could not recall anything to the contrary”.  

In relation to the complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act the respondent noted that it has already raised a preliminary point in relation to this complaint. Without prejudice to that point the respondent notes that in order to succeed in a claim under section 27 of the Act, a complainant must:

(i)               Demonstrate something that brings him or her within section 27(3)

(ii)              Provide evidence of having suffered a detriment within the meaning of section 27(1) and (2); and

(iii)            Show a causal connection between (i) and (ii).

The complainant submitted a grievance in March and May 2022 alleging bullying and harassment by a colleague.  The respondent accepts that such a grievance can be considered a “protected act”.

It is the respondent’s position that these complaints were the subject of an investigation which was progressed in September 2022, but the complainant did not engage in the process.  It is the respondent’s understanding that the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant through his trade union representative.

The respondent submits that to make out a complaint of penalisation contrary to the 2005 Act, it is necessary for a complainant to establish that the detriment of which he/she has complained was imposed on him/her “for” having committed the protected act.  The respondent’s representative cited several legal cases which clarified the word “detriment” and the necessity to have a causal link between the complaint and the detriment.  The following cases were noted:  Conway v Department of Agriculture [2020] IEHC 665; Tony and Guy Blackrock Limited v O’Neill HSD095 and St Johns NS v Akduman (HSD 102).

It is the respondent’s position that there is no evidence upon which to base a claim that the complainant suffered any detriment or that he asserted any rights under Section 27(3) of the Act.  The respondent refutes the allegation that the complainant suffered any detriment or indeed any adverse treatment because of the grievances submitted by him.  The complainant has failed to establish a causal link between his grievances and any detriment.

CA-00054832-001

This is a complaint of unfair dismissal, and the complainant is seeking reinstatement, reengagement and compensation.  The fact of dismissal in this case is not in dispute.  The dates of the complainant’s employment are also not in dispute. 

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides that “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 Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides as follows:

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:

(a)   the capability, competence or qualification of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b)   the conduct of the employee,

(c)    the redundancy of the employee, and

(d)   the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

Section 6(6) of the Act states as follows:

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly of mainly from one or more grounds specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal.

The Acts deem a dismissal to be unfair until the Respondent can demonstrate that it was neither substantively nor procedurally unfair.  The combined effect of the above sections of the Act requires me to consider whether or not the Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Complainant, on the grounds stated, was reasonable in the circumstances.  It is well established case law that it is the role of the Adjudicator in such cases, to consider the reasonableness of the Respondent’s decision in the circumstances.  It is not the function of the Adjudicator to establish either the guilt or innocence of the employee.

The function of the Adjudicator is to assess what a reasonable employer, in the Respondent’s position and circumstances, might have done.  This is the standard by which the Respondent’s actions must be judged against.  The Act places the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was fair.  As part of exercising this burden of proof the Respondent needs to show that fair process and procedures were applied when conducting the disciplinary process.

It is helpful to outline the sequence of events which led to the complainant’s dismissal:

·        24/01/2022:  Absence commenced.

·        22/03/2022:  First written warning.

·        20/04/2022:  Final written warning.

·        20/05/2022:  Investigation into ongoing absence.

·        20/07/2022:  Disciplinary hearing.

·        27/07/2022:  Outcome of disciplinary hearing confirmed by Director of Services to complainant.

·        05/08/2022:  Decision to dismiss ratified by Director of Corporate Affairs.

·        09/08/2022:  Complainant submitted appeal.

·        15/08/2022:  Appeal outcome (not upheld) confirmed to complainant.

·        02/02/2023:  Complainant submitted complaints to WRC.

The issue of fair procedures requires examination.  It is clear that the initial disciplinary and investigation process was conducted by a person with the relevant expertise.  The final disciplinary process was conducted in a manner which was not transparent, and which was not in keeping with the respondent’s disciplinary policy.    The respondent’s disciplinary policy provides for a disciplinary hearing as follows:

·        “9.17 The employee will be provided with reasonable notice in writing to attend a formal disciplinary hearing and will be advised of their right to be accompanied by a work colleague, or recognised Trade Union representative to the hearing.

·        9.18 No decision regarding disciplinary action will be made until the formal disciplinary hearing has concluded and the employee has been afforded an opportunity to be represented and to respond to same”.

In this case the complainant was invited to a disciplinary hearing which took place on 20/07/2022.  The chair of that hearing then wrote to the Director of Housing “to inform you of the outcome of a disciplinary meeting that I attended yesterday …”  The chair of this disciplinary meeting requested the Director of Housing: “Having considered what I have outlined above, I must ask you to decide on the disciplinary action that should now be taken against [the complainant]”.

The Director of Housing made no inquiries into the matter and deemed that she was satisfied that the respondent’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure had been adhered to and “I therefore recommend, in accordance with that procedure that he is dismissed from employment with the Council”. This recommendation was sent to Mr Stephen Brady, Director of Corporate Affairs on 22/07/2022.

The Director of Housing also wrote to the complainant on 27/07/2022 which, inter alia, notified him “… of my formal recommendation to the Director of Human Resources to dismiss you from the employment of the Council”.  This would seem to contradict Mr Brady’s evidence at the hearing that he was the person who made the decision to dismiss the complainant, and this was confirmed in a letter from Mr Brady to the complainant dated 05/08/2022 confirming that he had accepted the recommendation to dismiss and confirmed that he had made a “formal decision to terminate” the complainant’s employment.  Mr Brady in his evidence confirmed that he made no inquiries other than to review the documentation and the complainant’s file.

The complainant appealed the decision and requested a meeting to discuss his appeal.  He was not granted a hearing and the appeal was conducted based on the appeal letter and disciplinary documentation. I note that the respondent’s appeals process describes any meeting in relation to an appeal which “may the sole discretion of the Chief Executive or delegated member of the Senior Management Team, include a meeting with the employee and line manager concerned or any other parties the Council believes relevant”.

The process invoked by the respondent in this case is not outlined in their Disciplinary Policy and Procedure.  I accept that the complainant attended a disciplinary hearing on 20/07/2022.  The complainant would have expected that he would have been in a position to outline his explanations and any mitigating circumstances to the decision maker in relation to any disciplinary action.  What transpired was that this was the start of a process where no decision would be made, and the decision was made some two stages later.  This resulted in the complainant being denied the opportunity to present his case to the decision maker or having any input or opportunity to respond to the recommendation which led to his dismissal.

It also seems extraordinary that the appeal process did not observe any shortcomings in the disciplinary process.  If the appeal process held a meeting with the complainant this would have resulted in a more transparent appeal process.  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.”

Having regard to all the circumstances and having considered the totality of the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the disciplinary and appeals processes followed by the respondent were not in accordance with its own procedures and substantially unfair.

The Adjudication Officer must also assess whether in all the circumstances of this case the sanction of dismissal was proportionate and appropriate. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the respondent gave preference to its disciplinary procedure and deferred any investigation into the complainant’s serious grievances.    The respondent did provide a limited explanation for the delay.  The respondent’s aspiration to commence the grievance process a month after they dismissed the complainant was a futile exercise and it is understandable why the complainant did not engage in that process.  There is no evidence that the complainant had nothing but an unblemished record of employment over 20 years. 

Having regard to all of the circumstances of this case, I do accept the respondent’s submission that the sanction of dismissal imposed on the complainant was within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in the circumstances. 

Having heard the parties on the three forms of redress available under the Act I have determined that compensation is the appropriate form of redress given the circumstances of this case.

To determine the appropriate level of compensation an Adjudicator is obliged to have regard to the terms of Section 7(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act. 

“without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to –

(a)   The extend (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employer,

(b)   The extent (if any) to which the said financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by on behalf of the employee,

(c)    The measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid,

(d)   The extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provision of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister,

(e)    The extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the said section 14, and

(f)     The extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal.”

The complainant is required to provide evidence that he made every effort to mitigate his loss arising from his dismissal.  The complainant provided limited evidence.

It is incumbent upon the Complainant to give plausible evidence on mitigation of loss. Details of the complainant’s loss were submitted.  Some evidence was also provided of the attempts to mitigate his loss by becoming self-employed.

While he made some efforts to mitigate his loss by becoming self-employed I am not satisfied that he approached this with the resolve that is set out in the case of Sheehan v Continental Administration Co Ltd (UD858/1999) in the Employment Appeals Tribunalwhere it stated:  “a claimant who finds himself out of work should employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work.  It is not enough to inform agencies that you are available for work nor merely to post an application to various companies seeking work.  The time that a claimant finds on his hands is not his own, unless he chooses it to be, but rather to be profitably employed in seeking to mitigate his loss.”   

The complainant provided no evidence of an extensive job search following the termination of his employment on 05/08/2022.  It was submitted on his behalf that he tried to obtain employment through “word of mouth” and utilising various contacts. On the facts presented at the hearing and in the written submissions I am satisfied that the complainant made no meaningful efforts which could be classed as reasonable, convincing, and sufficient to mitigate his loss.

The complainant was on a weekly wage of €908.50 when working for the respondent.  He was dismissed on 05/08/2022.  He changed his status to self-employed and submitted accounts which showed that his net income from September 2022 to August 2023 was €14,331.

The complainant is also entitled to “the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1973”. In that context I have to take account of the complainant’s contribution to his dismissal which I find to be significant. There was considerable evidence adduced in relation to the fact that the complainant’s actions were a significant factor in the decision to dismiss him.

Having regard to all the circumstances and having considered the totality of the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the disciplinary and appeals processes followed by the respondent were not in accordance with its own procedures and substantially unfair. I have determined that the complainant is entitled to compensation of €1,817 which is deemed to be just and equitable

CA-00054867-001

In view of the findings in the above complaint (CA-00054832-001) Section 27 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act states that: “(5) If penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (3), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 20-01, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Part and under those Acts”.

In that context I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00054832-001

I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed from a procedural perspective.  I have determined that the complainant is entitled to compensation of €1,817 which is deemed to be just and equitable

CA-00054867-001:

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

Unfair dismissal. procedural