Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick  Murphy

Rigotec International Limited

Representatives

Self-represented

Cillian McGovern, BL instructed by Crushell & Co Solicitors

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-00071810-001

23/05/2025

The Complainant was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct.  It is the Complainant’s case that his dismissal was procedurally unfair.   He seeks compensation for his dismissal.  The Complainant earned €905 net per week at the time of his dismissal.  The Respondent submits: (i) the Complainant was dismissed following a thorough internal investigation; (ii) the dismissal of the Complainant was justified in all the circumstances; and (iii) without prejudice to the foregoing, should the Adjudication Officer find in favour of the Complainant, he should not be awarded compensation as he fully contributed to his dismissal.

Oral Testimony of the Complainant (under affirmation)

The Complainant outlined that he had the right to reply to any allegations against him and that this was denied to him by the Respondent.  He contends that he was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself against the accusation of theft, and that the Respondent did not follow fair procedures before dismissing him.  Instead, he received a letter of dismissal while on sick leave.  The Complainant outlined that he suffered from a medical condition and often would turn off his phone, and at the time of the meeting with the Site Manager, he had been suffering from a medical condition for several weeks. 

The Complainant outlined that any member of staff could go to the storage site once they contacted the owner of the storage site (herein after referred to as “Mr B”).  Mr B controlled access to the storage site.  The Complainant submitted that he attended the storage site outside of working hours on occasion, and had he been afforded an opportunity to participate in an investigation, he would have asked the Respondent to check CCTV footage of him and his son offloading a pallet on one occasion which was outside of working hours.

In cross-examination, the Complainant agreed he held a position of trust, and that he felt valued by the Respondent and was well-remunerated.  The Complainant was asked what he was doing at the storage site on 3rd January 2025 as the Respondent Company was closed that day; the Complainant was on annual leave; and no instruction had been given to him to go to the storage site on that date.  The Complainant responded: “I was loading sheets”.  The Complainant was asked: “where were the sheets going?” to which the Complainant responded: “No idea”.  The Complainant confirmed that the vehicle onto which the sheets were being loaded was his work vehicle.  He was asked was he operating that vehicle to which the Complainant replied: “I can’t remember”.  The Complainant was asked if it was his position that he was instructed to go to the site on 3rd January 2025 to which the Complainant responded: “we never needed authorisation from the company to go to the site. I forget why I was there on 3rd January. Often sheets are left unwrapped and they were not always wrapped at the storage site either.  If sheets got damaged, they could be used as sliders”.  The Complainant was asked why he went AWOL after the meeting on 4th February 2025 at which he was asked to account for the missing pallet.  The Complainant submitted that his mental health had not been great and that when that is the case he shuts down and switches off his phone.  He agreed that he did not inform the Respondent that he was not well.   He denied he had shut down because he had been caught stealing.  The Complainant confirmed he made no inquiries as to what had happened to the sheets which he had responsibility for.  He denied the sheets being loaded onto a truck in the still images (opened to the hearing) were going to a scrap yard and stated that he might have been taking them to the client site because they had been damaged and to make sliders from them.  The Complainant confirmed he had not thought of bringing his colleague (herein after referred to as “Mr A”), who was also dismissed, as a witness to the adjudication hearing.  The Complainant submitted that he had to go to the storage site a couple of times to get shorter sheets off a pallet.

The Complainant confirmed he was certified sick from 13th February 2025 until 9th April 2025.  He worked the remainder of the month of April and has been on jobseeker’s allowance since May 2025.   In response to a question on how many jobs he applied for since April 2025 the Complainant responded: “I was ringing around a few people in construction . . . 5 or 6 phone calls off the top of my head, I can’t give you a precise number”. 

The Complainant stated he was only looking for fair procedures in relation to his dismissal.  He was asked by Mr McGovern: “what would you have said in reply?” The Complainant responded: “I would have looked for the evidence.  I only got the images today”.  

The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that he only took instructions from the Site Manager and the general foreman (herein after referred to as “Mr C”).  He confirmed he visited his GP on 10th February 2025 and got a medical certificate until 9th April 2025.  He worked for most of April earning €800 net per week.  He is on jobseeker’s allowance since 9th May 2025.  He outlined he did not apply for any jobs but drove around the county calling to construction sites asking for work.  He did this 4 to 5 times.  He got no interviews and did not formally apply for any jobs.    

Oral Testimony of the Site Manager (under affirmation)

The witness outlined he is employed by the Respondent as a site manager for the past 3 years, and he worked with the Complainant for 2.5 years.  The Complainant was employed as the Store Supervisor, and he reported to the witness.  He held a position of considerable trust.  An employee (“Mr A”) reported to the Complainant.  The Complainant was responsible for procurement and day to day logistics.

The witness outlined that in early 2024 the Complainant was tasked with organising a long-term storage facility for high grade aluminium sheeting.  The Complainant secured a location (“the storage site”) which was fitted out with CCTV and electronic gates.  To access the storage site, a staff member was required to contact the owner of the storage site (“Mr B”) who would remotely open the electronic gates to allow a staff member access.  The aluminium sheeting was required for a client site (herein after referred to as “the client site”).  Due to the nature of work performed at the client site, the sheeting was required to be wrapped and kept clean.  In 2024 the witness directed the Complainant to move 10 pallets of aluminium sheeting to the storage site.  Each pallet contained several aluminium sheets.  A CCTV still (“image 6”) was opened to the hearing, showing 10 pallets of wrapped sheeting stored at the storage site.

On 29th January 2025, the witness directed that the 10 pallets of aluminium sheeting be moved to the client site.  When the pallets were received at the client site, Mr C noticed that only 9 pallets were present.  On 4th February 2025 the witness called the Complainant into a meeting with him and Mr C to inquire where the 10th pallet was as the Complainant was the Store Supervisor and was responsible for the storage and transportation of the pallets.  The Complainant shrugged his shoulders and said he did not know what happened to the pallet.  The Complainant left the meeting.  The witness tried to call the Complainant’s work mobile phone in the days following, but the Complainant’s phone was switched off.  The Complainant did not report for work after the meeting of 4th February 2025 and no contact was received by him or on his behalf until 13th December 2025.  A medical certificate was forwarded to the witness from the Complainant on 13th December 2025.

On 5th February 2025, the witness emailed Mr B as he needed to ascertain what had happened to the pallet and who had accessed the pallets at the storage site.  Mr B explained he was on leave but that he would view CCTV for the storage site on his return.  The witness met with Mr B on 12th February 2025 to view CCTV footage.  On 13th February 2025 Mr B emailed the witness 13 still images captured by the CCTV at the storage site.  Each image was opened to the hearing.  Having viewed the CCTV footage and images, the witness was satisfied that the Complainant and Mr A accessed the site without authorisation on several dates; removed several sheets of aluminium from a pallet; and loaded those sheets individually and unwrapped, onto the back of the Complainant’s work truck.  The personal vehicle of Mr A could also be seen at the storage site.  The witness was satisfied that the stills showed that the Complainant had accessed the storage site without authorisation or instruction from him or Mr C on 15th June 2024; 13th December 2024; and 3rd January 2025.  On each date, the time of access was outside working hours or on a date the Respondent business was closed, and the Complainant was either not scheduled to work or was on annual leave.  The witness outlined that he believed the Complainant had stolen the sheets and that he had probably sold the sheets at a scrap yard.  This, and the Complainant’s reaction when asked to account for the pallet, together with him absenting himself from work without explanation and switching his mobile phone off, confirmed in the witness’s mind that the Complainant was guilty of theft.  The witness wrote to the Complainant the following day.  In this email of 14th February 2025, the witness informed the Complainant that his employment was terminated effective immediately on grounds of theft.  The witness outlined that trust was essential, and he felt he had no option but to dismiss the Complainant.  The witness valued the loss of the sheets at €15,000 to €20,000.  The witness outlined that Mr A was also dismissed for theft.

The witness was questioned by the Complainant at the hearing as to why he was not provided with reasons for his dismissal and why he was told to delete correspondence sent to him after his dismissal.  The witness explained the latter instruction was given for GDPR reasons, and that the dismissal letter, together with the reasons for his dismissal, were sent to the email address on record for the Complainant. 

In re-direct, the witness confirmed that no instructions were given to any staff member to remove the aluminium sheets prior to January 2025.  Aluminium sheets can be cut on-site to be used for sliders, but they cannot be taken from the storage site to be used for sliders.  Aluminium sheets could never leave the storage site unwrapped because they are required for a clean room in the client site.  There was no requirement or instruction given by the witness or Mr C for aluminium sheets to be moved to the client site at any time prior to the instruction to do so in January 2025, rather they were in long-term storage at the storage site.  No instruction was given to the Complainant to go to the storage site on 3rd January 2025 as both the Respondent and the client company were closed and the witness and the Complainant and Mr A were on annual leave.  It was reasonable to conclude that the Complainant was stealing the aluminium sheets.  The witness was not aware that the Complainant was suffering from a medical condition in February 2025, and he seemed fine at the meeting on 4th February 2025.  The witness stated that he was aware that the Complainant had that medical condition previously and was quiet in himself then. 

The witness confirmed to the hearing that the Complainant only took instructions from either the witness or Mr C.  The pallets were in long-term storage until either he or Mr C gave instructions for the pallets to be transported to the client site.  The 9 pallets returned from the storage site were wrapped in the same way as they had been when initially transported to the storage site.  There was no need to have anyone at the storage site at any time between the time the pallets were deposited there in 2024 until the instruction was given in January 2025 to have them moved to the client site.

Closing & Legal Submissions

Mr McGovern outlined that 10 wrapped pallets of high-grade aluminium sheets went to the storage site in 2024.  In January 2025, the Site Manager gave an instruction to return the 10 pallets but only 9 pallets were returned.  The Complainant was responsible for these pallets and could give no explanation for the whereabouts of same.  He received no instruction from the Respondent to remove individual sheets, and the sheets in the stills were being transported in a manner incompatible with how they should be transported for clean room usage.  The stills all show unauthorised access by the Complainant on dates he was not instructed to be there, and which were outside working hours and/or when the company was closed and the Complainant was on annual leave. The stills show a pallet being broken down and sheets being transported unsecured and uncovered and in a manner incompatible with the use of same at the client site.  The Complainant was employed in a position of trust, but misappropriated company property to the value of €15,000 to €20,000 and had no consent to do so.  He shrugged his shoulders and claimed not to know what happened to the pallet when asked.  His actions represent a fundamental breach of trust essential to the employment relationship and his dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.  He materially contributed to his dismissal.  It is reasonable to assume he benefitted materially from his disposing of the sheets.  He refuses to explain what did happen to the sheets and his presence at the storage site on the relevant dates.  The Complainant was caught red-handed: perfect procedures are not required as adherence to same would not have changed the outcome. The hearing was directed to Pop v. City Break Apartments Limited (ADJ-00045335); Lennon v. Bredin M160/1978; Bates v. Model Bakery Ltd [1992] ELR 193; and Adesokan v. Sainbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2017] ICR 590.

Relevant Law

The Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977-2015

The Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977-2015 (“the Acts”) define “dismissal” in relation to an employee as including the termination by the employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee.

Section 6(1) of the Acts provides:

“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) of the Acts provides:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: (b) the conduct of the employee . . . .”

Section 6(6) of the Acts provides:

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Section 6(7) of the Acts 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) of section 7 (2) of this Act” (emphasis added).

Section 7(1) of the Acts provides:

“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 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances . . . . ”

Section 7(2) of the Acts provides:

“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, 

(d) 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 subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister,

(e) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the said section 14, and

(f) the extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal” (emphasis added).

Section 7(3) of the Acts provides “within this section— “financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1973, or in relation to superannuation”.

Fair Procedures

The right to fair procedures derives from an individual’s constitutional rights (Buttimer v. Oak Fuel Supermarket Limited [2023] IEHC 126 Dignam J. at [78]). 

In Khan v. Health Service Executive [2008] IEHC 234 Laffoy J. asks at [26]:

“What does fair procedures mean? At the very minimum it means that the person at whom a charge is levelled has proper notice of the charge; that he has proper opportunity to take legal advice and to prepare for hearing; that no one is to be a judge in their own cause; (nemo judex in causa sua) that both parties are given a full opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem) and that the judge is free from bias . . . . ”

In Smith v. Leddy (UDD1974), the Labour Court outlined:

“If theft was established, the Respondent would have a justification for dismissal.  No employer can be expected to tolerate theft.  However, to dismiss an employee because of theft requires that any such allegation is investigated properly, facts are established, these facts are put to the employee, he is afforded an opportunity to put his version of events and then, and only then, can a disciplinary process be carried out in which full account must be taken of all aspects, including the points made by the subject of an accusation.  At all stages, an employee is entitled to be represented and to ask questions of anybody giving evidence.  In the instant case, there was a failure by the Respondent to carry out anything more than a cursory investigation . . . . ”

In White v. Cadbury (Ireland) Ltd (UD 44/79) the Employment Appeal Tribunal held: 

“The denial to the appellant of the opportunity to make or present his counter arguments prior to . . . [the] decision to dismiss him was, in our opinion, a breach of his fundamental right to be confronted with the evidence against him and to make counter-arguments, explanations, pleas etc as may be relevant. We are accordingly of the opinion that the denial of this fundamental right to the appellant had the inevitable result of rendering this dismissal an unfair dismissal . . . .”

Mitigating Loss

In Sheehan v. Continental Administration Company Limited (UD858/1999) the Employment Appeals Tribunal held:

“The Claimant is obligated to seek and secure such measures that will minimise the losses potentially sustainable. In other words the Claimant must reasonably avoid the consequences of the Respondent’s wrongful act of dismissal. Thus, the Tribunal by virtue of section 7 (2) (c) is required to have regard to “.. the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the costs aforesaid...”  In considering the element of mitigation under section 7 (2) (c) it is necessary to establish:

1. What steps (if any) the Claimant took to lessen the losses sustained;

2. Were the steps so taken, reasonable, adequate and sufficient; and

3. Ought the Claimant to have taken other steps, not necessarily obvious steps, which a reasonably careful and reasonably prudent employee, would have taken?

In assessing the loss the Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the Claimant cannot recover for losses that could have been reduced or off-set by a course of action which the Claimant ought reasonably to have undertaken . . .   the issue is not a question of what the Claimant could have done, but rather what he could reasonably have been expected to do . . . ”

The Labour Court noted in Q-park Ireland Limitedv. Fitzpatrick (UDD2135) that it is a well-established principle that a dismissed employee’s time is not their own and they are required to apply part of every normal working day to securing alternative employment. 

Findings

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute and accordingly the burden of proof rests on the Respondent in this case to show that there were substantial grounds justifying the Complainant’s dismissal.  It is not for me to determine the guilt or innocence of the Complainant or substitute my own judgment for that of the Respondent.  Rather, I must apply the standard of ‘reasonable employer’.  This requires a determination of the range of responses which a reasonable employer could have taken having regard to the nature of the case and then a consideration as to whether the Respondent’s decision lay within that range (Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland v. James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, approved in An Bord Banistíochta Gaelscoil Moshíolog v. Labour Court [2024] IESC 38).

The Respondent outlined that the Complainant was employed as the Store Supervisor.  On 4th February 2025, at a meeting with the Complainant, the Site Manager queried the whereabouts of a pallet of steal.  The Complainant shrugged his shoulders and responded that he did not know.  He did not report for work after this meeting.  He made no contact with the Site Manager to whom he reported, or otherwise contact the Respondent, to explain his absence (until 13th February 2025 when he forwarded a medical certificate to the Respondent).  The Site Manager attempted to contact the Complainant by phone in the days following the meeting of 4th February 2025, but the Complainant’s mobile phone was turned off.  None of the foregoing is disputed by the Complainant.   

Between 4th February and 13th February 2025, the Site Manager set about establishing what happened to the pallet.  The Site Manager told the hearing that CCTV footage viewed during that investigation (stills of which were opened to the hearing) showed the Complainant taking sheets of steal on various dates the company was closed, and the Complainant was on leave.  This information, and the Complainant’s reaction when asked to account for the pallet, coupled with him absenting himself from work without explanation and switching his mobile phone off, confirmed in the Site Manager’s mind that the Complainant had engaged in theft.  On 13th February 2025, the Complainant forwarded a back dated medical certificate to the Respondent for the period 10th February to 24th February 2025.  The Site Manager told the hearing that he was satisfied the Complainant had committed gross misconduct and that he decided to dismiss the Complainant because of the seriousness of the wrongdoing and the breach of trust.  He wrote to the Complainant on 14th February 2025 to advise the Complainant of his dismissal.  Mr McGovern, in closing, submitted on behalf of the Respondent, that the Complainant was dismissed following a thorough internal investigation and that his dismissal was justified in all the circumstances.  

Section 6(4) of the Acts provides that a dismissal is deemed not to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from the conduct of an employee.  I am satisfied, on the evidence presented to the hearing, that a reasonable employer, armed with the information uncovered in the preliminary investigation, coupled with the Complainant’s reaction on being asked where the pallet was, may have formed a reasonable suspicion that the Complainant may have acted dishonestly.  However, a reasonable employer would put the Complainant on notice of those suspicions, provide him with the information gathered, and permit him an opportunity to defend himself.  Accordingly, I accept the submission of the Complainant that his dismissal was procedurally unfair. 

In accordance with s 6(7) of the Acts, I may have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the Respondent in relation to the dismissal of the Complainant with a disciplinary procedure or with the provisions of Statutory Instrument No. 146 of 2000 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures).  Mr McGovern, in closing, submitted on behalf of the Respondent, that while perfect procedures were not adhered to, the Complainant was caught red-handed and adherence to disciplinary procedures prior to dismissal would not have changed the outcome.  I do not find any of the cases opened to the hearing by the Respondent to be helpful in relation to this submission.  In Redmond on Dismissal Law (3rd ed., Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017) the author Desmond Ryan notes that it may be contended in particular circumstances that a hearing would make no difference to the employee’s case, but he adds that this proposition was “unreservedly rejected” by Walsh J. in Glover v. BLN Ltd. [1973] IR 388.  Rather an employer must not dismiss an employee without first according them fair procedures (Connolly v. McConnell [1983] I.R. 172). 

Mulcahy J. in Electricity Supply Board v. Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 at [47] noted that while the requirement to observe fair procedures in disciplinary proceedings is now well established, what amounts to fair procedures will depend on the specific circumstances of each case. 

Where a decision may adversely affect a person’s good name or livelihood, a broad range of procedural protections are engaged.  In this case, no written disciplinary/dismissal procedure was opened to the hearing by the Respondent.  The Complainant was not put on notice of the allegation of theft or permitted an opportunity to see the CCTV footage/stills collated by the Site Manager during his preliminary investigation.  He was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or to make any submissions in relation to the information gathered by the Site Manager.  In fact, his constitutional right to fair procedure was completely dispensed with.  At a very minimum the Complainant was entitled to have the allegation of theft put to him and to be given an opportunity to respond at a properly convened disciplinary hearing, and to have the matter fairly and impartially determined before his dismissal was considered.  I am not satisfied the Complainant’s actions following the meeting of 4th February 2025 (i.e., absenting himself from the workplace and switching off his mobile phone) absolved the Respondent of the obligation to at least seek to afford the Complainant his constitutional right to fair procedure.  There was nothing to preclude the Respondent writing to the Complainant to invite him to participate in the investigation (and/or disciplinary process should same have been found to be necessary).  Accordingly, I find the total absence of fair procedures, as identified above, take the decision to dismiss the Complainant outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to render the dismissal unfair. 

I am satisfied that compensation is the most appropriate form of redress in this case.  Compensation is based on an employee’s remuneration and financial loss.  Where financial loss is incurred because of the dismissal, the employee is entitled to be compensated for that loss (actual and estimated prospective loss), as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 104 weeks remuneration. 

The Complainant was earning €905 net at the time of his dismissal.  He was certified as unfit for work up to and including 9th April 2025.  He found a few weeks work then, earning €800 per week.  He has been on job seekers allowance since 9th May 2025.  I calculate the Complainant’s actual net loss to be approximately €28,000 (any social welfare payments received are not deducted).  With respecting to estimating compensation that is just and equitable for prospective loss, I have had regard to the Complainant’s approximate age, skills, the general employment market and likely rates of pay should the Complainant secure alternative employment, and I make no award with respect to prospective loss.   

Section 7(2) of the Acts provides that in determining the amount of compensation payable I must have regard to the matters outlined at (a) to (f) of that section.

I already found the Respondent failed to adhere to fair procedures and/or a discipline/dismissal procedure and/or SI 146.  Regarding the Complainant, I make the following findings with respect to his conduct prior to and after his dismissal. 

The Complainant was employed as the Store Supervisor: a position of trust.  When questioned about a pallet he was responsible for, the Complainant offered zero assistance to the Respondent to ascertain its whereabouts.  Further, he absented himself from the workplace without explanation for 5 days after simply being asked where the pallet was.  The loss of the pallet was estimated by the Respondent to be between €15,000 and €20,000.  The Complainant’s refusal to engage with the Respondent prior to 13th February 2025 played a part in the dismissal that then occurred.  Considering the foregoing, I am satisfied the Complainant contributed to his dismissal and I calculate that contribution at 50%.

I am also obliged to have regard to the efforts (if any) to mitigate loss in determining the amount of compensation payable.  In response to a question from Mr McGovern on how many jobs he applied for since 9th May 2025 the Complainant responded: “I was ringing around a few people in construction . . . 5 or 6 phone calls off the top of my head, I can’t give you a precise number”.  He also called to a few construction sites within his county of residence.  The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that he did not formally apply for any jobs. 

I note the Complainant found temporary work for a few weeks; however, I am not satisfied the Complainant took reasonable, adequate and sufficient steps to mitigate his loss between the months of May 2025 and the adjudication hearing.  I am satisfied that a reasonable employee, in circumstances similar to the Complainant, would make ongoing, consistent and genuine efforts to seek out and secure employment within their competence.  He would employ a reasonable amount of time each weekday in seeking work.  He would register with an employment agency/service, check vacancies every working day, and formally apply for jobs.  He would be open to work outside of the immediate county within which he resides.  He would keep a record of his efforts to secure work.  Having regard to all the foregoing, I reduce the compensation payable for actual loss by a further 60%.

Having regard to all the circumstances, I find it is just and equitable to direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the amount of €5,600 as compensation for his unfair dismissal.

I decide the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant compensation of €5,600.

Alleged gross misconduct.  Absence of fair procedures.