Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Office Administrator

A Property Management Company

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

IR - SC - 00002809

02/07/2024

The Worker began her employment as an Office Administrator on 24 October 2023 and was paid €342 per week. She stated that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment on 2 May 2024.

The Worker stated that she was approached by a resident of one of the buildings that the Employer managed on 28 April 2024. The resident wanted to find out the circumstances in which her mother had fallen in the corridor on 26 April 2024. Further to this request, the Worker allowed her to view CCTV footage. She was subsequently questioned about the matter by a manager further to a staff meeting on 30 April 2024. She acknowledged that she had shown the CCTV when she had been requested to do so by the resident. The manager stated that he would speak to head office in relation to the incident. On 2 May 2024, he requested a meeting with the Worker wherein he informed her that she was being dismissed because she should not have shown the CCTV footage to the resident.

The Employer stated that the Worker was dismissed because she breached the provisions of her contract of employment regarding confidentiality and the proper handling of sensitive information. Specifically, she allowed a member of the public access to internal CCTV footage. The Respondent stated that this could have potentially exposed the company to legal risks, including violations of data protection laws (e.g., GDPR) if it compromised the privacy and safety of individuals captured on camera. It was also highlighted that the Worker was in her probation period which was extended when she was dismissed.

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

I also have regard to S.I. No. 146 of 2000 – Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures), which sets out a basic procedure which an employer should follow prior to dismissing an employee. These include putting the allegations to the employee in writing in advance of a hearing, allowing the employee the opportunity to properly defend herself at the hearing, permitting the appropriate right of representation, and allowing an internal appeal of any determination. In essence, the Code of Practice requires that the procedures for dealing with workplace disciplinary matters (reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations) must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures, also confirmed in jurisprudence.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Practice above, I am satisfied that the worker was not advised in advance of the meeting of 2 May 2024 of the specific allegations in writing, that she could be accompanied at the meeting or that the meeting could result in her dismissal. I also note that the decision to dismiss the Worker was taken prior to the meeting of 2 May 2024 and had been made by Head Office. In addition, I noted that she was not informed that she had the right to appeal. 

While I noted that the Worker’s dismissal occurred during her extended probationary period, the Labour Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period and that the requirement of the Code of Practice applies in all circumstances in which a worker is on hazard of having his or her employment terminated.

Considering the foregoing, I find that the that the Employer’s handling of the entire matter breached the Worker’s right to fair procedures and natural justice, and she was dismissed without any due process. As a consequence, I recommend in favour of the Worker.