Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Engineer

A Company

Representatives

Self-represented

Katherine McVeigh BL instructed by  Hayes McGrath LLP

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

IR-SC-00002284

29/02/2024

The Worker commenced employment on 1 August 2023 as a senior electrical engineer. He was dismissed on 14 February 2024. The Worker contends his dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. The Employer concedes that the Worker’s dismissal was not in accordance with fair procedure and/or S.I. No. 146/2000, however, the Respondent requests that the Adjudication Officer give due consideration to the conduct of the Worker which led to his dismissal; the Worker’s short period of employment; and the otherwise favourable treatment of the Worker by the Employer during his short employment.

The Worker was not given advance notice that the meeting he was attending on 14 February 2024 was a disciplinary hearing. He was not given an opportunity to prepare for the meeting or to be accompanied by a work colleague. There were three persons in attendance for the Employer. The Worker felt very intimidated at the meeting. He was asked to hand over company property. The Worker refused to hand over this property. He was blocked from leaving the premises. The Worker called friends to attend as witnesses and started to record what was happening. The Gardaí attended the workplace some hours later.

The Worker submitted that he did not receive any warnings prior to his dismissal. No investigation had taken place. The Worker outlined that he had completed his probationary period. The Worker stated that the reason given for his dismissal was the repeated disclosure of confidential information to third parties. The Worker outlined that it was not him who had disclosed the name of a client project during one of the alleged occasions of disclosure. The letter of dismissal raised some issues that he was hearing for the first time. The Worker outlined that he emailed several managers in  client and end-user companies in relation to a personal work-related grievance because he felt that his grievance was not acted on internally. He felt that his continued employment was at risk because his hours were not billable to the client and he panicked.

The Worker outlined that he was advised of the right of appeal in the dismissal letter. This signed letter was prepared in advance of the meeting and handed to the Worker at the meeting. The Worker did not appeal the decision to dismiss him as he felt that the conduct of the Employer on 14 February 2024 was illegal. Further, he had lost all confidence in the Employer because of delays in payments due to him and because certain emails he composed were blocked or deleted. He had already referred a separate complaint to the WRC with respect to his grievance. In the circumstances the Worker felt the WRC was the appropriate body to deal with the matter of his dismissal. The Worker is seeking compensation for his unfair dismissal.

The Employer accepts that the manner in which the Worker was dismissed breached fair procedure and was not in line in S.I. No. 146/2000. The Employer outlined that the Worker knowingly and repeatedly breached company confidentiality. His actions in emailing managers within client companies and the end-user company in relation to an internal grievance damaged the Employer’s reputation and jeopardised the continued relationship with these clients. The Worker had only been in the employment of the Respondent for 6.5 months. During that time he sought improvements to his terms and conditions which the Employer bent over backwards to facilitate. The Employer had also agreed to reduce the Worker’s probationary period from 6 to 3 months at the request of the Worker.

The Worker was informally warned after the first occasion that he breached company confidentiality and yet proceeded on two further occasions to do the same thing. The initial months of any worker’s employment is a trial period. The seriousness of the conduct of the Worker cannot be ignored. The Worker had raised an informal grievance. This was being managed by the Employer, but because the Employer was not dealing with the issue with the speed desired by the Worker, the Worker communicated his grievance to several senior managers within client companies and the end-user company. He could not possibly argue that this would not seriously impact on the Employer’s reputation. The decision to dismiss the Worker on grounds of gross misconduct was well within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. The Worker did not afford the Employer an opportunity to deal with his grievance informally. He further did not exhaust internal procedures with respect to appealing his dismissal.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

There are a number of serious deficiencies in the manner in which the Employer conducted the disciplinary process that culminated in the Worker’s summary dismissal. This was acknowledged by the Employer. For this reason, I find the dismissal process fell far short of best practice and the Worker’s dismissal was, therefore, procedurally unfair.

Having carefully considered the totality of the submissions made by both parties, I find nevertheless, that the Worker contributed significantly to his own dismissal. It was not in dispute that the Worker on two occasions emailed senior management within client companies and the end-user company concerning an internal grievance matter. The Employer therefore had substantive grounds justifying its decision to dismiss the Worker.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, I recommend the Employer pay to the Worker compensation of €1,500 in full and final settlement of this trade dispute.

I recommend the Employer pay to the Worker compensation of €1,500 in full and final settlement of this trade dispute.

Dismissal. Less than one years’ service.