Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pravish  Jogee

ICTS (Ireland) Limited

Representatives

Nora Maguire B.L. instructed by Hennessy Perrozzi LLP

 Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00067933-001

06/12/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00067933-002

06/12/2024

There were initially two ADJ files, and it was agreed that they would be heard together. The first of these is Complaint CA-0006459 under the Employment Equality Acts which was to be heard as ADJ 52765. This was withdrawn at the hearing.

The second, and what follows is Complaint CA-00067933 which contained two complaints; one under the Unfair Dismissals Act and the other, penalisation under the Employment Equality Acts.

This latter complaint was also withdrawn leaving the Unfair Dismissal complaint only to be decided.

ICTS (Ireland) Ltd provides security in a number of highly regulated industries.

Pravish Jogee was employed as a Security Agent located at Dublin Airport in February 2022. On December 6th,  2024 he referred two matters to the WRC: CA-00067933-001, a complaint of unfair dismissal and 002 a complaint of Penalisation under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

The respondent at all times acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Subsequent to an earlier WRC claim in July 2024, (now withdrawn), in October 2024 a complaint of egregious conduct was made about him by a passenger which, if substantiated, would be in violation of several policies and procedures.

There was an investigation involving two investigation meetings with the complainant, one with a colleague (a witness), the review of documents and procedures, and of video evidence provided by the passenger.

On the basis of this, it appeared that the complainant’s behaviour breached the respondent’s policies and procedures; specifically (i) surreptitious recording of passengers and other employees on his personal device while at work; (ii) refusal to give the passenger back his passport upon the passenger’s request; and (iii) deliberately hiding his work ID from the passenger.

Following a disciplinary hearing,  he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.

On December 6th,  2024, he filed these claims with the WRC, alleging both unfair dismissal and penalisation and claimed that he was dismissed not due to gross misconduct but because he previously made a complaint. There is no merit to either of these claims nor any  nexus between the first WRC complaint and his dismissal, which was carried out in accordance with natural justice and Respondent’s policies and procedures.

The complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct due to his conduct for which there was adequate evidence.

In early October 2024, there was an incident between him and an airline passenger. Subsequently, the passenger made a written complaint. The passenger alleged, among other things, that he:

a.                                         refused to show the passenger Complainant’s ID when requested

b.                                       falsely claimed to be a Canadian border agent; and

c.                                        Withheld the passenger’s passport from the passenger.

The passenger provided video evidence, (which was played at hearing), which substantiated the claims of  misconduct. The video demonstrates both that the complainant deliberately hid his ID from the passenger and also hid the passenger’s passport behind his back, even when the passenger requested its return.

The video evidence also shows that the complainant, who is not a pilot, was wearing a ‘pilot’s wings’ pin on his uniform, contrary to our policies and, during this incident, apparently called the Canada Border Services Authority about the passenger, contrary to procedures.

Additionally, it was alleged that he took a photograph of the passenger’s passport on his own personal device. Accordingly, the respondent duly initiated an investigation into these allegations.

Further allegations of him making surreptitious recordings of passengers and employees without permission on a recording device during this incident also emerged. Several investigation meetings were held in relation to the incident. Notably, the complainant stated at his first investigation meeting that the passenger “asked who I was and asked me to show my ID. When I showed him my ID, I said that I worked on behalf of CBSA at the airport […]”

On October 16th, a subsequent investigation meeting was held with him in relation to the incident, when he was asked why he withheld the passenger’s passport. He stated: “The allegation is fake; at no point did I refuse to return the passport.”

The video taken by the passenger, which was provided to the complainant at this meeting, showed that he withheld the passenger’s passport and hid it behind his back and also hid his own work ID from the passenger. It contradicts his statements to the investigation.

During this meeting, the complainant was also asked to speak on any recording on his personal device, to which he gave inadequate responses. For the record, nowhere in our policies and procedures does it state that only single party consent is required for employees to covertly record other employees and passengers while at work on their private devices.

The relevant policy in the Employee Handbook follows.

Personal Mobiles/Tablets

If you bring your personal mobile/tablet into work, you should keep it switched off during working hours. Please use it only during authorised work breaks unless specifically authorised by your Line Manager.

You must not take personal pictures/make recordings on phones with camera/recording capability (video or audio) at work. Anybody breaching this rule will be subject to disciplinary action.

As part of the investigation,  the respondent also interviewed another employee as a witness, the minutes of which were shared. The full meeting minutes for these meetings, and the video evidence, were submitted and demonstrate gross misconduct on behalf of  the complainant.

Accordingly, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing, originally for October 24th, which was then rescheduled at his request to the 29th. The invitation letter advised him of his rights to a companion at the meeting. It also advised “These matters are potentially regarded as gross misconduct which may result in the summary termination of your employment if you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation to the matters put to you.”

Following the disciplinary hearing, on November 18th,  2024, he was summarily dismissed due to gross misconduct.  This dismissal was in accordance with the respondent’s policies and procedures and natural justice and was appropriate in light his gross misconduct.

Moreover, the allegation that he was unfairly dismissed “in the absence of any reasonable procedures” is false. He was dismissed following several investigation meetings, the review of significant amounts of evidence, a disciplinary hearing to which he was permitted to be accompanied, and Respondent’s through adherence to Respondent’s policies and procedures.

He was also offered the opportunity to appeal his dismissal, which he elected not to.

Evidence of Lauren Matthews on affirmation.

The witness works for the respondent as a Check-in supervisor and was also the complainant’s supervisor.  She outlined her working relationship with him which included checking him in in relation to his role to provide  security services.  She enjoyed a good working relationship with the complainant.

On the day of the incident with the passenger she went to the boarding gate and met passengers including the passenger who ultimately made the formal complaint.

She conducted the investigation the purpose of which was to find out what exactly had happened she had been present at the gate on the day the incident happened she asked him what had happened on whether he had continued to hold the passenger’s passport.

He confirmed that he had done so.

She  asked him why he had not given the passport back and she confirms the notes of this incident in the investigation report.

Regarding the complaint from the passenger,  there had been no meeting with the complainant prior to this. The company received an e-mail and a short video unsolicited. She outlined the procedure in relation to the conduct of the investigation and in relation to the complainant wearing a copilot tag he had said that it was always on show.

The complainant also told her that he only covered his ID briefly.

However, he amended his statement after the video was viewed and said would stop previously, he had said he had not covered the ID that he said he had done so briefly. He also confirmed that he was he was using a recording device in breach of policy.

The witness also said that the complainant told her that he did take a photograph of the passenger's passport, and she stated that this was not permitted as all that is needed is a passport number. The video of the incident was shown to him.

When he was shown this the witness said that the complainant accepted for the first time that the copilot tag was covering his company ID, and this did not correspond with what was said before the video was shown.

He changed his position when he saw the video.

In cross examination, the witness said that she was not aware of the complainant saying that the passenger became aggressive.

She confirmed that there was no independent person at the investigation meeting but felt that this was not a requirement at an investigation meeting and the complainant had a companion at the meeting.

No formal report of the investigation was complete compiled merely the minutes of the meetings she also confirmed that the passenger who made the complaint was not interviewed which one

Evidence of Tony Peoples on affirmation

The witness chaired the disciplinary meeting and is a key Account Manager but works in the corporate division and does not work in the aviation side of the business.

In relation to his experience of disciplinary meetings he said that he had previously chaired about ten disciplinary meetings and the same number of investigations.

He went through the pre-hearing notifications etc.

In relation to the hearing itself, he said that the allegations were put to the complainant and his responses considered. Having done so the outcome was the termination of the complainant’s employment for gross misconduct.

He gave his reasons for this. The complainant had changed his story in relation having seen the video, he had withheld a passenger’s passport contrary to regulations, and he had concealed his own ID.

He had also misidentified himself as part of the Canadian Border control and taken a picture of the passport contrary to regulations.

The witness had concluded that he was acting within the parameters of the company policy

In response to questions under cross examination about his experience of disciplinary procedures he added to the above that he also had experience of such procedures in his previous career in the commercial sector and also in the Defence Forces.

He said that he took into account all of the evidence of which the seventeen second video was only a part and also the admissions of the complainant.

He gave a reasoned decision.

He added that in addition to the breach of procedures represented by the taking of the photograph of the passport that it was also a security risk.

Legal Submissions

The Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct in accordance with Respondent’s policies and procedures.

​In O’Riordan v Great Southern Hotels UD1469/2003, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has provided a set of guiding principles that an Adjudication Officer must follow when determining whether the respondent reasonably concluded that the complainant was guilty of an Act of gross misconduct:

“In cases of gross misconduct, the function of the Tribunal is not to determine the innocence or guilt of the person accused of wrongdoing. The test for the Tribunal in such cases is whether the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds arising from a fair investigation that the employee was guilty of the alleged wrongdoing”.

The High Court has further echoed and reinforced this line of reasoning in Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, in which Noonan J remarked:

"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 – see Royal Bank of Scotland -v- Lindsay UKEAT/0506/09/DM.” (Emphasis added.)

The complainant was lawfully dismissed and it was directly attributable to his own gross misconduct. It is notable that he did not appeal the outcome of either his complaint or his dismissal.

In the EAT decision in Melinda Pungor v. MBCC Foods (Ireland) Ltd (UD548/2015) it was held that the Claimant’s failure to appeal her dismissal was fatal to her claim for unfair dismissal since there is an obligation to exhaust internal procedures before going external. The Employment Appeals Tribunal stated:

“The appellant has an obligation to exhaust the internal disciplinary process prior to seeking to enforce her rights externally. She has not satisfied her obligation and did not adduce any evidence that might justify her decision not to exhaust the internal process.”

Similarly, the Labour Court concluded in Aryzta Bakeries -v- Cacs (UDD1812) as follows:

“The Court also finds that there is an obligation on the Claimant to exhaust available internal procedures and that the Claimant failed to do so.”

The complainant was fully aware of the grievance procedure and had been provided with the Employee Handbook.

He is also obliged to seek to mitigate his losses as per Section 7(2)(c) of the 1977 Act and the Respondent would rely on the Labour Court Appeal case of Winnah Rose Hairdressing Limited v Meghan Ryan (UC/20/80) where it was stated that:

“The Complainant succeeded in securing employment in September 2019 and since that time she has received a rate of pay in her new employment of approximately twice the amount she received in her employment with the Respondent. In those circumstances the Court concludes that the Complainant was 100% successful in mitigating the financial loss attributable to her dismissal. Having reached that conclusion the Court is confined in making an award by Section 7(c)(ii) of the Act which makes provision as follows:

… 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:

(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.”

There have been a number of cases where a complainant was successful in claims of unfair dismissal, but had their compensation reduced to reflect the fact that their own conduct had contributed to their dismissal. This should apply here too.

In the case of A PM/ Complainant v A Food Producer (ADJ-00023204), despite finding that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant’s conduct had contributed to the decision to dismiss him. This conduct included the Complainant’s “attitude, his demeanour, his lack of trust in his employer – setting them up with recorded meetings, his repeated argumentative approach at meetings and his repeated references to wanting an offer to leave.” In the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, all of these actions had “undoubtedly contributed to his own downfall”. As a result of this, the Adjudication Officer concluded that the compensation to be awarded to the Complainant should be reduced by 60%.

In Mlynarski -v- Pianos Plus (UD 1294/2008) the complainant was awarded no compensation. The Tribunal held that:

“…the dismissal of the claimant was procedurally unfair and therefore the dismissal was an unfair dismissal… The Tribunal determines that the claimant was unfairly dismissed … and finds that the claimant’s contribution to his own dismissal is such that the appropriate remedy is an award of compensation in a nil sum.”

The Complainant commenced employment  on  February 14th,  2022 as a Security Agent at Dublin Airport. His primary responsibility was overseeing Westjet flights, with an hourly wage of €12.72. The Respondent is ICTS (Ireland) Limited, a company providing security services at Dublin Airport.

On October 4th, 2024, the complainant was employed as a Canada Border Services Agency Document Check Agent at Terminal 1, Dublin Airport, where he was responsible for verifying passengers traveling to Canada. The boarding agent, Sky Handling Partner, made an announcement regarding passengers who had checked in online. The complainant had been instructed and trained to remain vigilant for passengers presenting fake passports or displaying suspicious behaviour.

On the same date, the complainant approached a passenger who refused to cooperate or respond to the questions from him. In accordance with his duties, he took the passenger’s passport to verify the details and contacted the CBSA. The situation escalated, prompting the complainant to contact his supervisor, Ms. Lauren Matthews, and the airport police for assistance.

Upon her arrival, Ms. Matthews engaged with the passenger and took statements from those present.

When Ms. Matthews consulted with the complainant, both parties were aware that the conversation was being recorded. He expressed his intention to file an incident report, but Ms. Matthews advised him to await further information before proceeding.

OnOctober 4th,  2024the complainant was called to a meeting at ICTS Office Dublin Airport by his supervisor Lauren Matthews, in relation to the alleged incident. The chair of the meeting was Ms. Matthews. Minutes were taken and submitted in evidence.  

The complainant believes that Ms. Matthews was conflicted in carrying out what was supposed to be an independent investigation.

If it is found that the Investigation Process was fundamentally flawed, it naturally follows that the reliance of that process in the Disciplinary Process renders any disciplinary outcome fundamentally flawed. Therefore, it is submitted that the Disciplinary Process is fundamentally flawed by reason of reliance on the ‘fruit of the poison tree’.

The complainant submits that the chair exhibited a clear conflict of interest and demonstrated a lack of impartiality throughout the investigation.

Notably, key witnesses, including the alleged passenger complainant, were not interviewed, resulting in a significant failure to collect all relevant evidence. This oversight contributed to incomplete and inaccurate conclusions. The Chair's reliance on unreliable and partial evidence further compounded the issue, as critical information was either disregarded or inadequately considered.

The complainant also submits that the findings of the investigation are fundamentally flawed due to these procedural shortcomings. Furthermore, the Complainant was not afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or challenge the evidence presented. In addition, he was not permitted to defend himself adequately during the meeting.

The chair's dismissive attitude was evident when they stated, "I just want to stick this investigation," which the Complainant felt was a clear indication of the Chair's disregard for fairness and due process. As a result, the Complainant believes the entire process was biased, incomplete, and unfair. Furthermore, upon reviewing the minutes of the investigation, it is evident that his attempt to provide this information was not properly documented.

The minutes of the investigation clearly show that the Complainant made repeated attempts to explain and defend himself stating “I didn’t call CBSA for aggression, I called airport police. I called CBSA for verification of the passenger’s identity because he would not answer me”. However, the Respondent failed to engage with his explanations adequately and did not investigate the matter impartially or with the necessary attention to detail.

The complainant believes Ms. Matthews was conflicted in conducting the independent investigation and the false allegations contained in the investigation meeting. He asserts that the allegations made by the aggressor are entirely false. Specifically, he never refused to return the passport, as claimed.  He  has been subjected to physical assault and victimisation.

The respondent has repeatedly raised concerns about the complainant wearing a co-pilot tag, which is a gift and has always been worn alongside his Airport ID card. It was never previously raised with him, and had there been any concern, a simple request for its removal would have been sufficient.

The complainant maintains that he followed the training and protocols he was provided and acted in accordance with company guidelines. The respondent initiated an investigation into the accident without first seeking his statement. The supplemental investigation report is fundamentally flawed, notably because it lacks a date, lacking accuracy and validity.

On October 4th,  2024, the complainant was verbally suspended by Mr. David Jackson. Subsequently, on 9 October 2024, he received a formal suspension letter from Ms. Lauren Matthews. The Complainant submits that the suspension and subsequent actions was disproportionate under the circumstances.

He submits that the dismissal was unfair, disproportionate, and procedurally flawed. The Respondent failed to provide a fair procedure in relation to the investigation and suspension, and the action taken against the complainant was not justified by the facts.

Evidence of complainant.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

He described what happened in the course of the incident on October 4th, 2024, which had given rise to the disciplinary procedure.

He was checking a flight bound for Canada and he described the process involved. One particular passenger was uncooperative, and he asked the passenger to step to one side and told him he (the complainant) would have to make a call.

He did not say that he would not return  the passport to the passenger, merely that he would return it when he checked it.

As for taking the picture of the passport he says that he had been told in a training event that this could be done as long as it was done discretely. When asked whether he had brought this to the attention of the disciplinary hearer he said that he had.

He said that he did not make any recording of the event, but he accepted that he had recorded the subsequent investigation meeting.

He was critical of Ms Matthews who, when she arrived, ignored him.

Regarding the wearing of the co-pilot wings he said that this was a gift from a family member, and no one had ever objected to it before, although they were aware of it.

The Law

The Complainant submits that he was clearly unfairly dismissed from his employment and says there were no substantial groundsto justify the decision. Section 6(1) of the 1977 Act states:

        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.

The respondent breached Section 6(7) of the 1977 Act where it states:

[(7) 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 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.]

The judgment of Linnane J in Allied Irish Banks Plc v Brian Purcell[2012] 23 E.L.R. 189  sets out clearly the test to be applied in assessing the reasonableness of the employer when a decision is made to dismiss an employee:

In both the oral and written submissions made by counsel on behalf of the respondent, reliance is made on the band of reasonableness test – namely the test which counsel for the claimant agreed was the appropriate one to be applied in the hearing of the appeal before Mr Ward. Reference is made to the decision of the Court of Appeal in British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] I.R.L.R. 91 and the following statement of Lord Denning MR at p.93:

“The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably take a different view.”

It is clear that it is not for the EAT or this court to ask whether it would dismiss in the circumstances or substitute its view for the employer's view but to ask was it reasonably open to the respondent to make the decision it made rather than necessarily the one the EAT or the court would have taken

The above dictaclearlyoutlinethatthereasonablenessevaluationforthisAdjudication Officershouldbeviewedobjectively.Theobjectivefactsare relatively straightforward, arising from accidents on one day, the Respondent made unreasonable determinations and dismissed the complainant.

There  are clear instances of unfairness in the dismissal process; the guise of a procedure does not mean that the process is automatically fair. In two decisions of the Labour Court, the Court found that (in theory) full processes (in terms of steps) had been taken but still found the dismissals to be unfair. The decisions are Keelings Retail v Darius Traczy UDD195and Noonan Services Limited v Michal Buckowski UDD198.

The Labour Court in the Noonan Services case stated:

The Court does not dispute the fact that the process does not have to be flawless however, in this case a number of issues have been highlighted which in the Court’s opinion go to the heart of the Complainant’s ability to answer the charges being laid against him. In particular, … the failure to provide him with some of the allegations in advance of the investigation into same.

In reliance on the foregoing, it is submitted that the complainant’s claim that he has been unfairly dismissed is indefensible on the part of the Respondent.

The purpose of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 to 2015, is to ensure procedural fairness at the conclusion of one's employment. The reasonableness of the employer's actions is viewed objectively when examining adherence to both the accepted and contractual procedures, to ensure a fair process.

The decision in Hennessy v. Read and Write Shop Ltd UD 192/1978 sets out the general approach of the WRC in deciding cases for unfair dismissal. It was stated as follows:

"In deciding whether or not the dismissal of the claimant was unfair we apply a test of reasonableness to: the nature and extent of the enquiry carried out by the respondent prior to the decision
to dismiss the claimant, and the conclusion arrived at by the respondent that, on the basis of the information resulting from such enquiry, the claimant should be dismissed.

There are three key pillars involved in an assessment of the fairness of a dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

In order for a dismissal to be fair there must be some significant grounds to justify disciplinary proceedings or other actions against the employee related to performance or conduct.

The onus under the Act falls on the employer to justify the dismissal.

Secondly, in our employment rights system there are well established procedural obligations placed on an employer who is carrying out a disciplinary process in order to protect the rights of the employee, and all parties, and ensure that justice is done.

These are not particularly onerous and are generally well known.  They are referred to by such terms as fair procedure and natural, or constitutional justice.

Many, if not most cases coming before an Adjudicator are argued on the basis of facts that are generally not in dispute and the outcome normally turns on alleged inadequacies in the procedures and/or the appropriateness of the sanction.

Therefore, the conduct of the process by the respondent is not just a matter of whether the complainant’s rights were respected but additionally, whether its conclusions are reasonable.

The final pillar concerns the sanction.

In this, and on the basis of settled case law, (set out above in the submissions) the WRC Adjudicator will in general apply not his own view as to the gravity or otherwise of the complainant’s conduct.

In addition to the procedural aspect of the case, an Adjudicator will consider whether the sanction lies within a range of what night be considered reasonable, having regard to the nature of the respondent’s business activity. The test for this is set out in Allied Irish Banks Plc v Brian Purcell[2012] 23 E.L.R. 189 which appears in the respondent ‘s submission above.

The complainant focuses his challenge to the decision to terminate the employment primarily on the first two of these pillars (on the basis that the terminations should not then have arisen at all).

He offers mitigation in respect of the incident on October 4th, 2025, and essentially seeks to diminish the significance of his various actions, or provide justification for them.

He also attacks the independence of both hearers at the investigation and disciplinary stage and at the latter says that he was not properly listened to. He says that here was a ‘conflict of interest’ on the part of Ms Matthews.

In his submission, it is asserted that a fundamental flaw in the investigation will automatically render the process unfair. I do not think that the absence of a date on the document will bring it int the category of ‘a fundamental flaw’.

At the next stage, the criticism of the disciplinary hearer included allegations such as that the hearer  had a ‘dismissive attitude’ because he insisted on sticking to the matter in hand, when the complainant wished to digress into matters that were not material to the hearing.

The respondent has outlined in detail above the conduct of the various stages of the process.

I can see no reason on the basis of the submissions or evidence why Ms Matthews’ conduct of the investigation can be impugned.

In passing it should be noted that an investigation is generally no more than fact finding and the collection of evidence. There is a tendency to elevate it beyond this and apply quasi-judicial criteria to it (such as the right to cross examine witnesses etc). This is rarely required.

There may be circumstances in which an investigation is so flawed that it will contaminate the entire process, but an opportunity to correct alleged flaws in an investigation will generally arise at the disciplinary stage where a person may contest the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation.

Obviously, where the disciplinary hearer does not conduct a fair and independent assessment of the entire case presented at that stage, including any challenge to material in the investigation, that may become a different matter. If there have been flaws in the investigation, a party has the right to have these properly heard. A disciplinary hearer may attach only such weight to the investigation as is merited on the facts.

But, despite statements in the written submission that the complainant would give evidence of Ms Matthews’ conflict of interest he did not do so; no evidence of any conflict of interest was made out in relation to Ms Matthews, beyond simply asserting it, or complaining that she did not accept his explanations.

A process is not impugned by a failure to accept the validity of a person’s case unless it is perverse and unreasonable.  Ms Matthews’ only role was to collect the facts.

I have read the minutes of that investigation meeting on October 4th, 2024, and Ms Matthews’ line of questioning was to a good standard of objectivity. She asked open questions and there is nothing in the minutes to suggest bias or conflict of interest.

The simple fact that a person’s supervisor conducts an investigation falls very far short of a conflict of interest of itself.

Attempts by the complainant to challenge the disciplinary process were no more persuasive.

The Disciplinary Hearer, Mr Peoples,  gave assured responses as to his previous experience and he demonstrated a good awareness of his understanding of the obligations that fell on him as a decision maker, and  this is reflected in the report of the outcome of the Hearing.

The ‘dismissive attitude’ alleged against Mr Peoples based on him wishing to keep the hearing focussed on the issue before it is a totally inadequate basis for a challenge.

In his letter of November 18th, 2024, he sets out the outcome and gives reasons for his decision in detail. Again, this was not seriously challenged in any way by the complainant at the WRC hearing, except on the basis of very vague and unsubstantiated allegations of unfairness.

I find that the respondent had prima facie grounds to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and conducted a fair process.

I also conclude that termination of the complainant’s employment was within the range of sanctions a reasonable employer might apply having regard to its policies, the evidence, and the facts of the case.

The dismissal was not unfair.

Complaint CA-00067933-001 is not upheld, the dismissal was not unfair.

Complaint CA-00067933-002 was withdrawn at the hearing.

Unfair Dismissal.