Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eddie  Desmond

Irving Oil Whitegate Refinery Limited

Representatives

Diarmuid Long SIPTU

Emer O'Callaghan JRAP O'MEARA SOLICITORS

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-00057460-001

02/07/2023

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

CA-00057460-002

02/07/2023

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

CA-00057460-003 WITHDRAWN

02/07/2023

The Complainant commenced employment as an operator  with the Respondent on 20 February 1990. He was on a salary of €1,767.47 per week at the time of his dismissal. The Complainant submits that a random alcohol test which showed him as over the limit was a “false positive,” in that his interaction with the chemical ethanol before the test, affected the results. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the procedures adopted by the Respondent in conducting the dismissal were fundamentally flawed. The Complainant is seeking re-instatement for unfair dismissal. The Complainant further submits that he did not receive his statutory  notice on termination of his employment.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was afforded fair procedures throughout but ultimately that he was dismissed for gross misconduct when the following was upheld against him:

1.       That he breached the Terms of the Substance Misuse Policy and Testing Procedures i.e., that he failed to report immediately to the collection site for testing within 30 minutes (plus travel time) once notified to attend for testing; and

2.       That he further breached the terms of the Substance Misuse Policy and Testing Procedures i.e., that he failed the alcohol testing on Monday 5 December 2022.

Undisputed Facts:

The Respondent is designated as an Upper Tier Seveso site i.e., industrial sites that, because of the presence of dangerous substances in sufficient quantities, are regulated under Council Directives 96/82/EC and 2003/105/EC and are  commonly referred to as the Seveso II Directive.

The Respondent conducts random screening for substance misuse. The  Ireland Substance Misuse Policy and Testing Procedures (hereinafter “the Policy”) was agreed with Complainant’s union and the Policy was known to the Complainant. The Policy applies to every employee and contractor on site.

On 5 December 2022, the Complainant was randomly selected for substance misuse screening. The Complainant failed to attend for testing within 30 minutes (plus travel time). When he did appear, he failed two breathalyser tests for alcohol. Dr Mulcahy, the Company Doctor, conducted a medical  review on site following the failed breathalyser and formed a clinical judgement that he was under the influence of alcohol. The Complainant was deemed unfit for work and was required to leave the site. The Complainant was subsequently suspended on full pay.

A disciplinary hearing, chaired by Mr Brian Reihill, Operations Manager commenced on 12 January 2023. Submissions were received afterwards from the Complainant and the hearing resumed on 22 February 2023. An expert opinion in relation to the Complainant’s submission regarding ethanol exposure was provided to the Respondent  by Dr Brian Gallagher (in consultation with Dr Martin Hogan) of Corporate Health Ireland. Final submissions were received from the Complainant on 1 March 2023. Mr Reihill issued his decision on 29 March 2023 which upheld the allegations  against the Complainant and imposed a sanction of summary dismissal. The Complainant was advised of his right of appeal, which he exercised. Mr Todd Underhill, Refinery Manager for the Respondent conducted the appeal hearing on 13 April 2023 and 28 April 2023. He issued his decision on 12 May 2023. The Appeal was denied.

 Both parties accepted that the date of summary dismissal was 12 May 2023, for the purposes of this case.

Summary of the Evidence of Mr Brian Reihill, Operations Manager:

The witness gave an outline of the disciplinary process. He testified to the authenticity of the  notes of meetings that had taken place, where there was a notetaker in attendance at all times and also that copies of these notes were supplied to the Complainant at the material times.   He was of the belief that the results of the breathalyser test, were conclusive and he classed them as the investigation from a workplace point of view. The first test showed 26 ug/100mg of breath taken at 12.50 on 5 December 2022   and the second test taken at 13.03 showed 22ug/100mg of breath. The tests were carried out by a qualified tester. The tests results documentation was attested to by the witness and exhibited.  All documentation related to the tests and subsequent medical report from Dr  Mulcahy were exhibited. He stated that it was the initial  position of the Complainant that he had no knowledge of  the Substance Misuse Policy. The Complainant subsequently accepted that he had received the policy. He gave evidence that the Complainants case was that his working with ethanol prior to testing could have potentially given a “false positive “ result and that his delay in coming for the test was due to the fact that he was involved in a critical operation to stem the flow of ethanol in a broken pipe.

The witness gave evidence of meeting the Complainant’s colleagues and supervisors where notes were taken and copied to the Complainant where he was assured that the ethanol operation on the relevant day was not an urgent task and could have been sealed off at any time, therefore, he concluded that there was no good reason for the Complainant to have delayed going for the alcohol test.

On the “False Positive” issue, the witness testified to a  communication between himself and Dr Brian Gallagher, Consultant Occupational Health Physicist, where the witness said he had given all of the relevant information surrounding the Complainant’s interaction with an ethanol pipe. The witness exhibited Dr Gallagher’s letter to him where Dr  Gallagher concluded that it was very unlikely that the Complaint had absorbed a significant amount of ethanol in the open air whilst he was wearing PPE.

The witness said he carefully weighed up all the evidence he found, including medical evidence,  and based on the balance of  probabilities, that the Complainant was guilty of gross misconduct (1) In failing to turn up for the testing at the required time and (2) when the tests were eventually carried out, it showed that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol. He found that this was gross misconduct on both counts, and that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.  On the Complainant’s application for re-instatement, the witness said that his conduct severely breached the trust and confidence the Respondent had in the Complainant, and he could not consider re-instatement to be a redress that would be realistic.     

In cross-examination, the witness stated that he made a decision to refuse cross-examination of witnesses and he re-iterated his position that  the result of the drugs and alcohol test was the investigation. He accepted that a urine test was required under the Policy,  but it was  he (the witness) who brought it to the attention of the Complainant that no urine test had taken place. The witness accepted that, in reference to a note of a meeting, he did say he was not ruling out an investigation, but that was said in a  small talk interaction that should not be considered as his position on an investigation.  

Summary of the Evidence of Dr Diarmuid Mulcahy, Company Doctor:

The witness testified to the written report he had sent on 7 December 2022 to Ms Trish Leahy HR Manager, relating to his examination of the Complainant on 5 December 2022. He noted the result of the test and confirmed that the test had been carried out by a qualified tester. He was in possession of the Policy and noted that the level of breath alcohol concentration meant there was a risk of suboptimal work performance which may have posed a safety risk to both the Complainant and his work colleagues. He gave evidence that he noted the demeanour, appearance and interaction of the Complainant and formed the opinion he was under the influence of alcohol. He advised that the Complainant should not continue working that day. He accepted that he did not perform the required urine test on the  day.

In cross-examination, the Complainant’s representative exhibited a contemporaneous note from the witness, obtained under a  data request,  which seemed to show that the witness had noted that the Complainant did not seem intoxicated. When put to the witness he said he was confident in his assessment on the day that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol at work.

Summary of the evidence of Dr David Cooke, Consultant Occupational Health.

The witness was engaged by Corporate Health Ireland (CHI) and gave evidence as  an expert  in support of the findings of his now retired colleague in CHI who gave the original findings that ethanol could not have been adsorbed through the skin, or otherwise inhaled, to show an alcohol level as indicated in the breath tests. He said that it was extremely unlikely that the results of the alcohol testing on the material day would have been skewed by a person wearing PPE gear in the open air, over a barrel of ethanol, for a period of one hour and  thirty-five minutes.

Summary of the evidence of Mr Alan Thornton, Supervisor.

The witness attested to notes that were taken of a meeting with Mr Reihill, Operations Manager, which were read into the record. He described the difficulties they had in contacting the Complainant for his scheduled alcohol test after he met with an occupational nurse who told him they had been looking for the Complainant for over an hour and a half. He also attested to the fact that the stemming of a leak in the ethanol line was not crucial and could easily be closed off for further repair.

Summary of the evidence of sub-contractor, Ciaran O’Donovan.

The witness attested to notes that were taken of a meeting with Mr Reihill, Operations Manager, which were read into the record. He testified that he made the Complainant aware of his call to attend at the medical centre earlier in the day. He stated that the Complainant did not seem intoxicated to him.

Summary of the evidence of Fergus Wall.

The witness attested to notes that were taken of a meeting with Mr Reihill, Operations Manager, which were read into the record. The witness gave evidence of the operation on the ethanol line on the day. He stated that the Complainant was wearing PPE – helmets, glasses, gloves, and  overalls.

Summary of the evidence of Ms Patricia Delaney, Occupational Health Nurse.

The witness gave evidence of the difficulties the medical centre had in contacting the Complainant on 5 December 2022 for random drugs/alcohol testing.

Summary of the evidence of Mr Todd Underhill, Respondent General Manager

The witness gave evidence of hearing the appeal of the Complainant. The letter he sent to the Complainant of the outcome of the appeal was read into the record. The witness had no preconceived information on the case because he only found out about the Complainant’s dismissal letter when he had received a copy. He permitted cross-examination of the medical experts during the appeals process. He outlined the seriousness of the gross misconduct of the Complainant, relative to the safety critical work carried out at the refinery.

In cross-examination he re-iterated the Respondent’s position that he considered the investigation to be the results of the breathalyser test which were conclusive. He accepted that neither  the Code of Practice on grievance  and disciplinary procedures (SI 146 of 2000) were incorporated explicitly, nor implicitly,  in the Respondent’s procedure.

SUBMISSION.

The Respondent claims to have provided fair procedures throughout the process. These  included  informing the employee of the allegations, providing relevant policies and procedures, sharing medical reports, and testing results, giving the employee an opportunity to respond, providing representation, and offering access to an Employee Assistance Programme. The Respondent  also states that the range of disciplinary sanctions and the purpose of the meetings were communicated to the employee.

In a  closing statement  the Respondent referred to Rowland v An Post 2011 IEHC 589 where the Court established that perfection in procedures was not the legal standard but rather that matters should be looked at in the round, and in all circumstances.

The Respondent submitted that the two breath tests constituted an undeniable test, in essence an investigation, that was backed up by sound medical reports. None of the medical evidence was contradicted by the Complainant. The Respondent argued that the Complainant had no problem in attending for four random alcohol tests in the past, and within the time limit as required by the Policy. The Respondent contended  that the test only became an issue for the Complainant  when he tested positive for alcohol  and turned up significantly late  after being told by two  different colleagues at three different times to contact the medical centre for testing. The Respondent submitted that it can only be assumed that the delay orchestrated by the Complainant was so that he believed the alcohol would be metabolised in his system so as to show a negative result – which ultimately did not happen. The Respondent further submits that, in the absence of any evidence from the Complainant, the evidence of the Respondent witnesses should be recognised as being uncontested. The Respondent submitted that, when everything is taken into account, the decision to dismiss the Complainant for gross misconduct was substantively and procedurally fair.  

The Complainant declined to give evidence on the substantive or procedural issues but instead chose to give evidence on mitigation of loss only. After his dismissal on 12 May 2023, he commenced employment with a local taxi company in early September 2023  on a salary of €350. His salary at the time of dismissal was €1,767 per week. He drew down his pension payments (a more detailed breakdown of his pension income was supplied post hearing).

SUBMISSION:

The Complainant’s submission can be summarised as follows:

Unfair Dismissals Act: Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (“the Acts”)  states that a dismissal should be considered unfair unless substantial grounds justify it. The Respondent's decision to dismiss the Complainant  lacked reasonableness as there was no impartial investigation to confirm the validity of the breathalyser test, making the dismissal disproportionate.

Fairness Obligations: The Complainant  was unfairly dismissed according to the Act, as the Respondent failed to follow fair and reasonable procedures outlined in SI 146/2000, showing a disregard for fairness in the dismissal process. The Code of Practice Compliance: SI 146/2000 (“SI 146 of 2000”) serves as a guide for grievance and disciplinary procedures. It should be followed by reasonable employers in the absence of their own procedures to ensure fairness and adherence to natural justice principles.  The Respondent failed to adhere to principles outlined in the Code of Practice, including providing details of allegations, allowing the Complainant to respond fully, and ensuring a fair and impartial determination of the issues.

 The Complainant  was not afforded fair procedures, as outlined in the Supreme Court case of Re Haughey 1971 IR 217 which include being furnished with evidence, allowed to cross-examine accusers, and present rebutting evidence, and address the body concerned in their defence.

Reasonableness Standard: The actions of the respondent were not reasonable according to Noonan J.'s interpretation in Bank of Ireland v. O'Reilly [2015] 26 E.L.R. 229. The Respondent failed to conduct a proper investigation and consider the Complainant's requests, rendering their actions unreasonable. 

 Investigations:Frizelle v. New Ross Credit Union [1997] IEHC 137 requires employers to interview the employee, base decisions on evidence and explanations, and ensure proportionality in the decision to terminate employment. The Respondent failed to follow these principles in this instant case , conducting a flawed and impartial process that disregarded the Complainant's explanations and failed to consider alternative sanctions or the impact on the Complainant.

The Complainant argues that the  case of Philip Curley v. Iarnrod Eireann [2015] 10 JIEC 2901 serves as a relevant example for assessing alcohol levels in workplace disciplinary matters. Despite contestations over the accuracy of a breathalyser test, the claimant in that case, who admitted to consuming a significant amount of alcohol the night before, lost the case. The Complainant submits that this case is  pertinent to his situation, considering his weight, duration on-site, and the implausibility of consuming sufficient alcohol to produce the test results given his background and track record.

Similarly, the case of Trevor Kennedy v. Veolia Transport Ireland Limited [2006] 10 JIEC 2001 illustrates the importance of adhering to company policies regarding alcohol testing procedures. Unlike the Complainant,  who had no objection to providing a urine sample, the claimant's refusal in this case contributed to an unsuccessful outcome. However, the Complainant argues  that had the correct procedure been followed, the Complainant  would not have failed the test, indicating unfairness on the part of the company.

In the case of Eduard Markovskij v. Suretank Limited CA-00041251-001, the respondent's failure to follow its own Drugs and Alcohol Policy undermined the credibility of allegations against the complainant. Similarly, it is argued that the Respondent’s  failure to follow its policy, including not conducting a confirmation urine test, reflects unfairness in this instant case.  

Furthermore, in case number ADJ-00025396  concerns were raised  regarding the reliability of breathalyser test results and the fairness of the investigation process. Similar to this case case, the adjudicator found flaws in the investigation and raised doubts about the fairness of the dismissal decision, emphasising the importance of procedural fairness and proportionality.

In closing the Complainant s argues that the Complainant’s  reinstatement is warranted based on his extensive tenure, impeccable record, and procedural flaws in the disciplinary process. Precedents such as IT Tutor v Community Training Organisation ADJ-00019429  and Stapleton v St Colman's Credit Union 1776/2012 further support the argument for reinstatement, highlighting the importance of fairness, proper procedures, and proportionate sanctions in employment disputes. Ultimately, the Complainant argues, reinstating him would rectify the injustice done to him and uphold principles of fairness and procedural integrity within the workplace.

CA-00057460-001  UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Applicable Law:

The Acts in their relevant part provide:

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.

Section 6(7) of the 1977 Act provides:

"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so -

(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 referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act."

This principle of reasonableness requires employers to not only establish substantial grounds justifying dismissal but also to follow fair procedures before termination. A relevant case opened by the Complainant was  Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd [1997] IEHC 137, which outlined premises necessary to support a decision for termination due to misconduct, emphasising the importance of bona fide complaints, clear communication, fair employee interviews during an impartial investigation, evidence-based decisions, and proportionality in dismissal. Flood J. highlighted that principles of natural justice must be unequivocally applied by employers in cases of unfair dismissal.

In McKelvey v Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail [2019] IESC 79 , Justice Charlton referenced Connolly v McConnell [1983] I.R. 172, emphasising that employers are obligated to adhere to principles of natural justice before dismissing an employee. This includes providing reasons for dismissal and affording the employee a fair opportunity to defend against any allegations. Charlton J. stressed the importance of conducting a thorough investigation when he stated  “Hence, there should be as full an investigation of the relevant events as is reasonable in the circumstances before disciplinary action is taken, the employee should be notified of this so as to enable an answer to be given by him or her and to have the matter impartially decided” The issue in that case was whether there was an absolute right to legal representation during a disciplinary process, when a trade union representative was available – the Court decided there was no right  during the process -  but in a finding relevant to this instant case the Court stated that what was required for a fair process was that the plaintiff or his trade union representative be given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the evidence of any witnesses against him on a reasonable basis.

The evidence of both Mr Reihill and Mr Underhill was that they both considered the investigation to be the results of the breathalyser tests. This suggests a pre-determined outcome and indicates a course of action that is best avoided. The frequently referenced case of  John v Rees [1969] 2 WLR 1298 underscores the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice regardless of the perceived  misconduct. The case emerged from a contentious dispute within a constituency association of the British Labour Party, wherein several individuals, including a Member of Parliament, were ousted from the party subsequent to a tumultuous incident during a Party meeting. Among the issues deliberated upon was the imperative for the National Executive of the Party to employ equitable procedures prior to expelling party members. Megarry J said:  

“As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change.”

The Respondent’s own procedures, surprisingly devoid of detail and relatively  archaic for a highly regulated industrial enterprise,  demand an investigation in cases of gross misconduct. It is clear that no such investigation took place. It was further apparent  to me that there was an  attempt to play “catch up” by the Respondent when important issues like the potential side effects of ethanol and a subsequent missed urine test, was brought to the fore at the disciplinary hearing. This mistimed hybrid investigatory /disciplinary process, carried out by Mr Reihill raised a significant question  of partiality.

 Mr Reihill had already declared that he was satisfied that the tests were the investigation beforehand thus leading to a reasonable  perception  of bias before the disciplinary process began. Being both investigator and the person who carries out the disciplinary process is seldom advised. In the case of Orange Communications v Director of Telecommunications (N02) (2000) 4 IR 159, bias is defined as any relationship, interest, or attitude that either influenced or could reasonably be perceived to have influenced a decision or judgment already made, or that might reasonably be perceived to influence a decision or judgment yet to be made. This definition echoes the earlier case of Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) AC 87, where bias was characterised as the absence of an open mind in decision-making. Denham J., in Dublin Wellwoman Centre Ltd. v. Ireland (1995) 1 ILRM 408, emphasised that bias is not merely a matter of subjective assessment; it also involves an objective consideration of whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias. I am satisfied that the evidence of both Mr Reihill and Mr Underhill, by underpinning the position of the Respondent that the breath tests constituted an investigation without need of further enquiry, created an apprehension of bias, but more importantly deprived the Complainant of an impartial investigation where matters could be fully trashed out before the disciplinary process had been initiated.

The Respondent in this case argued that perfection is not the legal standard when it comes to procedures. I agree with that contention but imperfection by its definition in this context suggests a technical omission or otherwise a misstep that doesn’t skew the entire process. However, in this case the lack of an impartial investigation, the element of  pre-determination and the non-application of SI 146 of 2000 were circumstances that went beyond imperfection and instead  created a patently unfair dismissal  procedure for the  Complainant . I am satisfied therefore that the procedure was flawed, and  it was a process which did not afford the Complainant his rights under the well-established  principles  of natural justice. Accordingly, I find that the dismissal was  automatically unfair and in breach of the protections afforded by the Act.

Redress. Redress for unfair dismissal is provided for under Section 7 where it provides:-  

7.— (1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances: (a) re-instatement by the employer of the employee in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal, or

(b) re-engagement by the employer of the employee either in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal or in a different position which would be reasonably suitable for him on such terms and conditions as are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or (c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

and the references in the foregoing paragraphs to an employer shall be construed, in a case where the ownership of the business of the employer changes after the dismissal, as references to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership. (1A) In relation to a case falling within section 6(2)(ba) the reference in subsection (1)(c)(i) to 104 weeks has effect as if it were a reference to 260 weeks.

(2) 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 extent (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 was attributable to an action, omission or conduct by or 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...

The Complainant is seeking reinstatement in this case. I consider such redress to be unrealistic in light of the uncontested evidence of Mr Reihill, that the Respondent  feels that a severe breach of trust and confidence has resulted from the Complainant’s behaviour on such a safety critical issue.  Furthermore,  the Complainant has considered himself self-retired for the purposes of drawing down his pension, therefore such redress is impractical. I deem the consideration of compensation to be the only option in this case.   

When evaluating compensation, I  must adhere to section 7(2)(b) of the Act, as mentioned earlier, which mandates consideration of the Complainant's contribution to his  dismissal. I note that the Complainant did not give any evidence in support of his case that could be evaluated or responded to by the other side. Notwithstanding the fact that I consider the convincing evidence of the other side to be uncontested due to the Complainant’s refusal to give evidence, I am satisfied after hearing submissions and evidence in this case that had proper procedures been adopted by the Respondent, I would have found the dismissal to be fair. The Respondent informed the hearing  of their strict zero-tolerance stance on turning up at work under the influence of alcohol  in light of the critical safety standards around working with  explosive substances. The Complainant was well aware of the Substance Misuse Policy and Testing Procedures and cannot  reasonably claim surprise at his  dismissal. Considering the comprehensive awareness among all employees and sub-contractors , the evident risks posed to staff, customers, and the public by any breach of this policy, the legal and ethical ramifications for the Respondent, and the undisputed breach of the  policy, I  conclude that the Complainant's actions directly led to his  dismissal, warranting a 100% contribution to the decision. Consequently, I conclude that  awarding zero compensation is deemed appropriate.

CA-00057460-002  MINIMUM NOTICE

As I have found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, it follows that his complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 must succeed and is well founded. Given that he had more than 15 years’ service, he  is entitled to eight weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.    

As he  earned €1767 per week , I make an award of €14,136 in  respect of this complaint.

CA-00057460-001 Unfair Dismissal.

 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the  Acts. For the reasons outlined above I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, however, I also find that the Complainant contributed 100% to his dismissal therefore I do not require the Respondent to pay compensation on foot of this finding.

CA-00057460-002 Minimum Notice. Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

  As I have found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, it follows that his complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 must succeed and is well founded. Given that he had more than 15 years’ service, he  is entitled to eight weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.     

As he  earned €1767 per week , I make an award of €14,136 in  respect of this complaint.

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, Unfair Procedures.