Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Setanta Solicitors

 Peninsula

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

CA-00054257-001

22/12/2022

The complainant was employed from January 2021 until the respondent terminated her employment on 3 August 2022.

The complainant referred this claim of unfair dismissal to the Workplace Relations Commission on 22 December 2022.

The complainant was employed with the respondent in credit control and administration from January 2021.  The complainant had previous service with the respondent and was approached by the respondent in and around December 2020 to return.    The complainant was responsible for all accounts administration and invoicing.  The complainant was reprimanded in May 2022 by the managing director and another director in relation to emails she had sent.  In or around 29 June 2022, the operations director requested the complainant meet with her.   The operations director and another director met the complainant in the kitchen and asked about the complainant’s last medical certificate, which had cited work-related stress as the reason for her absence.   The complainant explained the difficulties she was having around miscommunications and workload.  The complainant was reprimanded again in or around July 2022 for how she handled an invoice mistake with a customer.   The complainant was on approved leave from 28 July to 3 August 2022.  On her return to the office on 3 August 2022, she was met at the front door by the managing director who asked her to come with him to the kitchen.  The complainant went to the kitchen where another director was also present.  The managing director informed the complainant that the respondent was terminating her contract, that there was far too much controversy, and it wasn’t going to work out.  The complainant was told to leave the premises immediately and was informed that someone would collect her belongings and deliver them to her.  The complainant was paid a month’s wages but had to follow up with the respondent for payment of outstanding annual leave.

It was submitted that the complainant was dismissed without warning and without any investigation or disciplinary procedure.  The reasons given by the respondent for dismissal, and the manner in which the complainant was dismissed, cannot be considered to be within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer and can only be regarded as an unfair dismissal.  Case law on the reasonableness of the decision to dismiss and conduct-related dismissals was cited in support of the complainant’s case.

Summary of the complainant’s sworn evidence

The complainant returned from leave on 3 August 2022.  She was asked by the managing director to go upstairs.  Another director was there.  She was told that there was too much controversy going on and it was not working out.  She was required to leave the premises immediately and told that the respondent would arrange for someone to deliver her belongings. 

The complainant had not seen the verbal warning document included in the respondent’s booklet of documentation for the hearing until the night before the first hearing date. The complainant had also never seen the letter dated 8 August 2022, included in the respondent’s booklet, which referred to a disciplinary hearing with the complainant on 3 August 2022, falsification of medical records, summary dismissal and a right of appeal.  The allegation of falsification of medical records had never been raised with the complainant in employment.  The complainant did not have any contact with the respondent after she left the premises on 3 August 2022, apart from following up with it for her wages in September 2022. 

The complainant worked for a start-up company from October 2022 until March 2023.  She was not paid for her work with the start-up company.   The complainant did some courses after her dismissal as she found it difficult to find work.

Under cross-examination, the complainant was referred to the staff handbook and the examples of gross misconduct detailed therein.  The complainant was asked about a doctor’s certificate of unfitness for work on dates in June 2022 which referred to work-related stress.  The complainant had told the doctor she had work-related stress.  Issues were cleared up in a meeting with the operations director just before the complainant sent an email on 29 June 2022 saying she had no work-related stress issues right now.   The complainant denied sending a list of the respondent’s customers to her personal email address, or that she did so for the purpose of working with a start-up company.  The complainant accepted sending from her work email address to her personal email address information relating to an IT system used by the respondent.  It was not for the start-up company as they were based in the UK so the system would be of no use to them.

In response to questions relating to mitigation of loss, the complainant started looking for a job in the logistics area within a couple of weeks of her dismissal.  The complainant had two interviews lined-up, but they were cancelled before she attended them.  The complainant began working with the start-up in October 2022, she expected money to come in around January or February 2023.  The role fizzled out in January/February 2023.  The complainant had been looking for part-time work while she was working with the start-up company, and she did some online training during this period. The complainant’s mitigation efforts after March 2023 involved phone calls and interviews with agencies.  There were no interviews happening, so the complainant decided to do an SNA course.  The SNA course was expected to start in November 2023.   

The respondent provides transportation services.   The complainant took up employment in January 2021 in credit control and accounts to provide cover for an employee who was on leave.  Timekeeping and attendance were always an issue. 

The respondent reprimanded the complainant on 26 May 2022 for the turmoil she was causing in the office. 

The complainant was given a verbal warning in April 2022 for absenteeism.

The managing director spoke with the complainant on 10 May 2022 on foot of complaints from work colleagues about the complainant.

The complainant was guilty of gross misconduct for going to her doctor and being untruthful about why she was sick resulting in a certificate detailing work-related stress.

At an informal meeting on 29 June 2022, the complainant was reminded of the proper procedure for recording sick leave and lates.

By letter dated 8 August 2022, the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, namely for telling her doctor that she was suffering from work-related stress.

The respondent conceded procedural flaws in how it dealt with the termination of the complainant’s employment, however it was totally exasperated.  It was submitted that a flawed disciplinary procedure does not in and of itself render a dismissal unfair and that such a finding is only justified where a fair result was imperilled.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, the complainant’s conduct and contribution to her dismissal must be considered in the assessment of any compensation under section 7(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. 

Summary of sworn evidence of operations director

The witness is a director of the respondent company and is employed in operations.  She oversaw the accounts office and worked with the complainant on a daily basis.

At the beginning the complainant was very good at her job.  Timekeeping, absenteeism and low performance issues began to occur.  The complainant’s six-month temporary contract expired and there were more issues; with staff members coming informally to the witness with issues concerning the complainant, including what was essentially bullying on the part of the complainant.  The witness, with another director and the managing director, looked at different procedures for dealing with the issues, including informal conversations, a verbal warning and suspension.

The witness was responsible for keeping account of absenteeism and holiday records.  A medical certificate submitted by the complainant on 20 June 2022 referred to work-related stress.  This was a cause of alarm for the respondent as it had no idea the complainant was experiencing any stress in work.  There was an informal meeting with the complainant and the witness asked about the work-related stress.  The complainant said that her stress was not related to work but to her home life, but that she had said stress to the doctor because one of the directors had annoyed her.  This was subsequently confirmed in an email from the complainant to the witness.  A plan was agreed whereby the complainant would use time off in lieu to cover appointments for treatment she was getting, and that the complainant would work early or during lunch to cover the time off to attend the appointments.  The complainant never did in fact work early or during lunch.  

In relation to emails the complainant had sent from her work email to her personal email address in July and November 2021, these were highly sensitive and would count as gross misconduct under the respondent’s policies and procedures. 

The complainant responded calmly when she was told she was suspended and accepted everything that was said to her.

Cross-examination

The witness described the workplace as a well-oiled machine where everyone got on and there was good morale.  She considered emails using bad language to be uncommon.

The witness was asked about her involvement in the preparation of the verbal warning/counselling memo document dated 22 April 2022 included in the respondent’s documents.  It was put to the witness that the complainant had never seen or been given a copy of this document.  The witness said it was prepared by another director, that he printed it off and gave a hard copy to the complainant.  The witness was copied on the memo document because she is in HR. 

The witness was asked about the complainant’s suspension and the documentation that issued from the respondent to the complainant in relation to suspension and the termination of her employment.  It was put to the witness that the complainant was not suspended but dismissed on 3 August 2022, and that she never received a dismissal letter.  The witness did not have evidence of posting a dismissal letter dated 8 August 2022.  The witness had typed a dismissal letter dated 8 August 2022, which had been dictated, and then signed, by the managing director.   The meeting of 3 August 2022 was a meeting to tell the complainant she was suspended.  There was no letter to the complainant in relation to her suspension.  The witness did not know why the note of a suspension meeting on 3 August 2022 with the complainant referred to a disciplinary meeting and that gross misconduct had occurred.  The witness said the meeting on 3 August took place in the kitchen with the complainant, managing director and another director. 

The witness confirmed that there was no reference to bullying in either the dismissal letter of 8 August or the verbal warning memo document dated 22 April 2022.  The bullying complaints were dealt with informally.  When asked about its relevance to the unfair dismissal proceedings, the witness said that it shows the complainant’s character.  When asked why the complainant’s employment was not terminated during the first six months, the witness said the bullying issues were in 2022.

The witness accepted that emails from 29 June 2022 had been incorrectly quoted in the respondent’s written submission.  

The evidence of the complainant lying to her doctor was that she had called in sick saying she was not well, her medical certificate submitted 20 June 2022 said work-related stress but when the witness spoke with the complainant about this on 29 June 2022, the complainant said it was not work-related stress.  Asked about when the complainant said she lied to her doctor, the witness said that it was from the informal meeting and emails of 29 June 2022.  The witness prepared the note of the informal meeting of 29 June 2022, she could not say whether the note was emailed to anyone after the meeting. 

The witness confirmed for me that the emails from the complainant’s work address to her personal email address had come to the respondent’s attention after the complainant had stopped working. 

Summary of sworn evidence of a staff member

This witness works partly in operations and does a lot of sales.

The atmosphere on the floor was good.  When the complainant was around, the witness felt on the defensive.

The witness made a bullying complaint against the complainant.  The witness found the complainant’s behaviour upsetting.  The witness was not feeling well at the time and she wanted someone to speak with the complainant.

In cross-examination, the witness said that she spoke with the operations director on a tea break about the complainant’s behaviour.  The witness did not make a formal written complaint, she wanted to keep it informal or for there to be a verbal warning.

The witness was asked about a document signed by her that the respondent’s representative had referred to as a written complaint.  The witness said she was asked to prepare this complaint in January 2022.  The witness confirmed that she wrote the document referred to as the written complaint and that she had been asked to talk about the complainant and her behaviour towards the witness.  The witness confirmed under cross-examination that she was on sick leave from July to December 2022.   

Summary of sworn evidence of a manager

The witness read a personal statement into the record and confirmed an email he sent to the operations director concerning an overdue account in which he referred to unprofessional behaviour on the part of the complainant.

The witness described an informal and relaxed environment in the company.

The witness was asked about working from home arrangements. 

Under cross-examination, the witness could not recall when he made his personal statement.  He brought issues regarding the complainant to the attention of HR and did a brief investigation; nobody wanted to pursue an issue.  The witness brought it to the attention of the operations director.  He didn’t know what else he could have done.  The witness confirmed there is no contemporaneous documentation relating to these issues.   The witness was not in attendance at the meeting of 3 August 2022 and was not involved in the decision to dismiss.

Summary of sworn evidence of financial controller

This witness commenced employment with the respondent in March 2022 and was expected to work closely with the complainant.  The witness described the atmosphere as toxic.  She found the complainant’s attitude towards her very degrading and her manner of address harsh.  There was an apology from the complainant in this regard on one occasion.  The witness told management that she wouldn’t be able to stay in the position as the way the complainant spoke to her was unacceptable.

Under cross-examination, the witness said she spoke with members of management in June or July 2022, and she had been asked whether she wished to pursue a complaint against the complainant.  The witness said she was hoping to resolve it and said she would see how things went.  The complainant apologised to the witness in or around the end of June 2022.  The witness did not refer a formal complaint. 

The witness was not involved in the decision to dismiss.

Summary of sworn evidence of a director (R)

The witness worked in the same office as the complainant.  He had to intervene on a few occasions to remind the complainant of professional behaviour, at which stage the complainant would cease her behaviour and apologise.  A lot of staff were well able for the complainant and would sometimes have a go at the complainant.   It was a busy office and things could get heated. 

There was no problem with taking time-off and there was flexibility in this regard.  The complainant took a lot more time off than others.  There was no warning given.

Under cross-examination, the witness was asked about a verbal warning document signed by him on 22 April 2022 but not signed by the complainant.  It was put to the witness that the complainant had not seen this document until it was included in the respondent’s booklet of documentation for the hearing.  The witness could not say why the document was not signed by the complainant and did not know why there wasn’t a record of this having been sent to the complainant.  The witness prepared the document because the complainant was not following sick leave procedures.  He printed the document off and left it on the complainant’s desk.  This would be his usual procedure. 

Asked about his personal statement in the respondent’s booklet of documentation, the witness said he prepared it in advance of the first hearing date.  The witness confirmed there were no contemporaneous records for the period January 2021 to August 2022 relating to the matters being complained of about the complainant.

The witness did not say much at the meeting on 3 August 2022.  The managing director spoke and said things were not going well.  The complainant was told she was being suspended for falsifying the doctor’s certificate.  The respondent had not reached out to the doctor in relation to the medical certificate.

The witness confirmed to me that he did not have a conversation with the complainant about the verbal warning document and did not bring it any further with the complainant.

Summary of sworn evidence of the managing director  

This witness is managing director of the respondent company. 

The witness expressed his opinion of the complainant’s character in the workplace. 

The witness described the general positive atmosphere in the office and how he ran the company in a way that staff would feel happy and supported.  It was a light management touch.  He accepted that the respondent was not good with written procedures and that there were procedural deficiencies in how the complainant’s dismissal was handled.   The respondent was not good at dealing directly with confrontation or controversy.  The witness had never dismissed anyone before and hoped not to have to do it again.   

On 3 August 2022, he told the complainant that they had a lot of difficulties with her and her work ethic did not match the respondent’s ethic.  The witness had been made fully aware of what was going on with the complainant and, at this stage, had run out of patience.  The witness told the complainant that she was summarily dismissed as her actions amounted to gross misconduct.   The witness considered the doctor’s certificate and email from the complainant of 29 June 2022 to be incompatible.  The complainant’s conduct was incompatible with what this witness wanted for the respondent organisation.   He did not regret his decision or make a mean-spirited decision.

Under cross-examination, the witness did not believe the respondent had a case to answer.  Regarding evidence given in relation to the complainant’s character, the witness said it was not the intention to roast the complainant.  The reason for the complainant’s dismissal was the falsification of her medical certificate records.   Asked about what he meant by falsification of medical records, the witness said it meant that the complainant had given false or misleading information; the doctor was saying she was suffering from work-related stress and this was untrue.  The witness outlined his opinion as to why the complainant had given the respondent just cause for dismissal and that the bullying behaviour was the biggest issue for him. 

The witness stood over the decision to dismiss.  The doctor was not contacted about the medical certificate as the witness did not think this was possible.

By way of re-examination, the witness said the complainant had not exercised a right to appeal the decision to dismiss.

I find on balance that the respondent dismissed the complainant on 3 August 2022 and that a letter dated 8 August 2022 was factually inaccurate.  In this regard, the evidence from the respondent’s witnesses as to whether the complainant was dismissed or suspended on 3 August 2022 was inconsistent.  The respondent’s note of the meeting on 3 August refers to it in one part as a suspension meeting and another as a disciplinary meeting, and that the complainant was advised at the meeting that gross misconduct had occurred.  The respondent’s written submission to the Commission detailed the date the complainant’s employment ended as 3 August 2022.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, namely for being untruthful and telling her doctor that she was suffering from work related stress when she wasn’t.

The Relevant Law

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 (the “Acts”) provides as follows:-

“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)(b) of the Acts deems for the purpose of the Acts a dismissal resulting wholly or mainly from the conduct of the employee, not to be an unfair dismissal. 

In accordance with section 6(6) of the Acts, it is for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the conduct of the employee or that there other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(7) of the Acts provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:-

“(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

(b) to 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 section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice …”

My role is to decide against the facts whether the respondent’s decision to dismiss was reasonable.

In this regard, I note from the decision of Noonan J in The Governor and the Company of Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241 as follows:-

“It is thus clear that the onus is on the employer to establish there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the matters specified in s.6(4), which includes the conduct of the employee or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.  Section 6(7) makes clear that the court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct in relation to the dismissal.  That is however not to say that the court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgment as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer.  The question rather is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned …”

The burden of proof rests with the respondent to establish the substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the complainant. 

The grounds for dismissal

The respondent maintained that the falsification of a medical certificate amounted to gross misconduct.   The respondent’s disciplinary rules specify an instance of gross misconduct as “deliberate falsification of any records (including time sheets, absence records and so on, in respect of yourself or any fellow employee)”.

The evidence before me established that the alleged falsification of medical certificate records was not the only reason for the complainant’s dismissal.

In relation to the instance of gross misconduct in and around deliberate falsification, I am not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the respondent’s belief in this regard.

The complainant provided the respondent with a medical certificate from her doctor dated 20 June 2022.  It certified unfitness for work on 2 days in June 2022 due to pain and work-related stress.  This was the doctor’s certification.  There were meetings and emails between the parties regarding the reference to work-related stress with the last such email on the matter before me dated 29 June 2022 from the complainant stating “No it was stress from already being unwell and adding the mis/non communication from [NAME] it was all too stressful for me at the time, work and homelife. … I have no work related stress issues right now at all”.  There was no reference to falsification of a document in any of the written communications between the parties at the relevant time.  

In his direct evidence, the managing director outlined the complainant’s explanation of why “she had put down” that she was experiencing work related stress, and in relation to emails on 29 June 2022, that the doctor had obviously acted on the information the complainant had told him. 

I am satisfied, on the evidence and submissions before me, that what the respondent took issue with, and considered to be gross misconduct, was the reference to work related stress in the doctor’s certificate and not any alleged falsification of the certificate. 

Following the respondent’s engagement with the complainant in or around 29 June 2022 in relation to the reference to work-related stress, the next engagement of note on the matter is the complainant’s dismissal on 3 August 2022.  There was a dispute between the parties as to whether the complainant had been told her dismissal was for falsification of a medical certificate.  On balance, I find that the complainant was not so informed. Notwithstanding this finding, I consider the respondent’s dismissal of the complainant on grounds of gross misconduct for falsification of a medical certificate to be unfair.  The evidence tendered that the complainant had lied to her doctor is without foundation having regard to the emails from the complainant at the time.  This matter should have concluded with the clarification from the complainant that she was not at that time experiencing work-related stress.   

I have carefully considered the evidence tendered by the respondent and the weight I attach to written submissions and oral evidence of alleged behaviour and conduct on the part of the complainant in the workplace, and of a verbal warning. 

In relation to the verbal warning/counselling document dated 22 April 2022, I accept that the complainant was spoken to about absence notification procedures.  However, on balance, I do not accept that the complainant was given this verbal warning document and informed a verbal warning was placed on her file.  The document is unsigned by the complainant where there is provision for acknowledgement of receipt in the document.  An email from director R of 21 April 2022 addressed the matter of absence notification procedures with the complainant and made no reference to a verbal warning being placed on the complainant’s employee file.  The evidence of the operations director and director R in relation to how the verbal warning was communicated or provided to the complainant is inconsistent.  I have also had regard to the respondent’s disciplinary procedures which provides for a formal verbal warning to normally be disregarded for disciplinary purposes after a six-month period, whereas the verbal warning/counselling document stated that the warning will be place on file and disregarded after 18 months.

Conduct-related allegations against the complainant that featured in personal statements and the oral evidence of witnesses were either never addressed by the respondent with the complainant or were addressed in an informal manner.  It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the relevance of such evidence goes to section 6(4) of the Acts.  The allegations included alleged defamatory emails sent by the complainant, having allegedly made borderline racist comments, a toxic environment allegedly created by the complainant, alleged aggression, alleged bullying and more.  I note the evidence of both the operations director and managing director to the effect that the relevance of such matters to my adjudication are to illustrate the character of the complainant.  I am satisfied, having carefully reviewed the documentation relied upon by the respondent, that personal statements of witnesses along with emails and letters from two witnesses, were created after the complainant was dismissed.  In my view, unsubstantiated allegations and matters that were resolved in the workplace do not assist the respondent under section 6 of the Acts in justifying the complainant’s dismissal.  There was either no investigation at all of the conduct alleged against the complainant, or the approach adopted by the respondent was to address certain issues with the complainant in an informal manner.

The oral evidence of the respondent’s witnesses was inconsistent in relation to the reason or reasons for the complainant’s dismissal.  Director R’s evidence was that the reason for the complainant’s suspension on 3 August 2022 was the falsification of the medical certificate.  The managing director in his evidence outlined why the complainant had given the respondent just cause for dismissal and confirmed that bullying was the biggest issue for him.

The respondent’s investigation of the conduct relied upon to justify her dismissal cannot be considered fair.  The complainant was on approved leave from work from 28 July 2022 to 3 August 2022.  On her arrival in work on 3 August 2022, the complainant was brought by the managing director to a meeting with another director and dismissed.  If there was any investigation by the respondent of the alleged instance of gross misconduct or of other matters raised by way of personal statements and oral evidence and relied upon by the respondent to justify the complainant’s dismissal, the complainant was unaware of same.  The evidence before me was of employees not wishing to pursue complaints against the complainant or of issues in relation to matters such as absence notification procedures being resolved with the complainant at local level.

The respondent’s response to the conduct in issue cannot in my view be regarded as falling within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer, and I consider the dismissal of the complainant to have been disproportionate.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent has failed to discharge the onus of establishing that there were substantial grounds justifying the complainant’s dismissal.  The respondent acknowledged the shortcomings in its disciplinary and dismissal procedures.  I find that the complainant’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair.

Redress

The complainant is entitled to redress for her unfair dismissal under section 7 of the Acts.

The complainant’s preferred form of redress was compensation, and this is what was addressed by the parties at the hearing.  The complainant was registered to undertake a course of study as a special needs assistant in November 2023.  Having regard to all the circumstances, including the evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent, I consider redress of compensation to be appropriate.

The complainant was unfairly dismissed and has incurred financial loss attributable to her unfair dismissal.

It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant had actively been seeking employment since her dismissal on 3 August 2022 and that the actual financial loss attributable to the dismissal is €40,950.00.  It was further submitted that the salacious nature of irrelevant damage tendered to damage the character of the complainant should be taken into account in my determination of the amount of compensation.

Section 7(1)(c) of the Acts provides for compensation as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances and I have had regard to the factors set out in section 7(2) of the Acts in determining the amount of compensation payable.

In this case, the manner in which the respondent terminated the complainant’s employment, its failure to comply with its own disciplinary rules and procedures, including its procedure that an employee will only be disciplined after careful investigation of the facts and an opportunity to present their side at a disciplinary hearing, amounts to a disregard to the complainant’s rights to fair procedures.  The foregoing is relevant in the context of section 7(2)(d) and (e) of the Acts.

The complainant has been unemployed since 3 August 2022.  She was paid by the respondent for the month of August 2022.   The evidence before me of the complainant applying for jobs is limited to reaching out to contacts after her dismissal and applying for a role with three employers in April 2023.  The complainant was offered work with a UK based start-up in October 2022 and it was anticipated the start-up would become profitable and the complainant would receive a wage in January or February 2023, but this did not happen.  Documentation submitted showed the complainant having registered with recruitment platforms and having received job alerts.   The complainant expressed interest in an evening payroll course in September 2022 but that did not proceed.  She applied for a special needs assistant course in June 2023, and this was due to commence in November 2023.  The evidence before me does not support the submission that the complainant was actively seeking work, including when she took up the role with start-up company.  I consider there to have been insufficient efforts to mitigate loss and I have taken this into account in determining the amount of compensation payable in accordance with section 7(2)(c) of the Acts.

The respondent submitted that the complainant by her conduct contributed to her dismissal and that this should be taken into account under section 7(2)(f) of the Acts.  As outlined above, conduct related allegations were either not addressed by the respondent with the complainant in accordance with the respondent’s own procedures or best practice, or were addressed in an informal manner.  The allegations expressed at the hearing cannot be elevated to a proven status and there is no reasonable basis for a finding of contributory conduct on the part of the complainant prior to her dismissal.    Accordingly, no deduction will be made to reflect contributory conduct.

In the circumstances, I determine €14,000.00 to represent just and equitable compensation for the financial loss attributable to the unfair dismissal and direct the respondent to pay this sum to the complainant. 

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed, and I award the complainant €14,000.00 in respect of financial loss attributable to the dismissal.

Unfair dismissal – Conduct – Allegations - Reasonableness of decision to dismiss