A discount store manager who was suspended and later sacked following a "joking" allegation that she was involved in vandalising a junior colleague's car has won over €33,000.
The Workplace Relations Commission found the worker had been "denied an opportunity" to prepare a defence against "vague" allegations against her – calling it "fundamentally unfair".
In an anonymised decision against an unidentified British-headquartered retailer published today by the Workplace Relations Commission, the store manager’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 was upheld.
The tribunal was told that an assistant manager, Mr X, working at the same store had his car vandalised on 17 April 2021 – and that he later felt "intimidated" because two former employees had come into the store’s back office with the manager and joked about it three days later.
That was the same day another colleague, Mr A, approached him and the complainant and stated that Mr Z had come to him on his break and claimed: "Everyone knows who damaged [Mr X’s] car, it was [the complainant] and Y".
Mr X told a company investigation that complainant then "went red" and insisted the allegation was "f***ing bulls***."
He said Mr Z later told him he had been "joking" about Mr Y and the complainant having been involved in the vandalism and that Mr Y told him he had "nothing to do" with it.
However, Mr X said he "felt uncomfortable that the complainant allowed Y and Z to be in the workplace" – and that she had questioned him about whether his family "had any issues or trouble with anyone" which might have caused the incident.
Witness interviews and investigation meetings followed between May and June 2021, with the complainant being suspended with pay on 13th May, the tribunal heard.
The worker told the tribunal that despite sending "over 17 emails" requesting the full details of the allegations against her, she never received Mr X’s original grievance, and felt "very uneasy".
Her evidence was that she indicated her willingness to engage "if she was given all of the information".
She said it was "very unfair" that a further investigation meeting on 15 June went ahead without her and that the first time any allegations were put to her was when she was first invited to a disciplinary hearing, which ultimately took place on 17 August that year.
The investigating officer’s evidence was that he had read Mr X’s statement aloud to the complainant and insisted he sent it to the firm’s UK office to be forwarded to her.
When the employee’s solicitor put it to him in cross-examination that reading it aloud was not sufficient, the witness said he "only had one copy".
When the internal disciplinary meeting opened on 17 August 2021, the complainant read out a prepared statement objecting to it proceeding, and it was adjourned.
Then in February 2022, another area manager wrote to the complainant apologising for a delay and informing her the original disciplinary officer had left the company – but that she was being summarily dismissed.
The new disciplinary officer - an area manager - had concluded on review of the case file that the employee committed a "gross breach of the bullying and harassment policy" by leaving the store and returning with Mr Y and Mr Z, leaving Mr X "feeling intimidated".
The area manager added that there had been a "gross breach of the company's security processes" – and added that the complainant had failed to comply with a "reasonable management request" by failing to attend three investigation meetings.
The worker’s internal appeal was denied.
In her decision, adjudication officer Emer O’Shea said the investigating officer’s evidence that he sent the original grievance to the complainant was "unconvincing" as he lacked clarity, could not say when it happened or back it up with any documentation.
By contrast, the complainant had shown "14 separate requests" for the document backed up by emails submitted in evidence, which Ms O’Shea found "compelling and convincing".
"I find as a consequence that the investigative [and] disciplinary process was flawed from the outset and the respondent was in breach of its own disciplinary policy," Ms O’Shea wrote.
"The complainant was denied an opportunity to prepare her defence in circumstances where she was not furnished with the complaint against her and this was fundamentally unfair," Ms O’Shea added.
The adjudicator also criticised the delay of six months between the adjourned disciplinary meeting and the failure of the new disciplinary officer to speak directly with the complainant, which she called "very unfair".
Ruling the dismissal unfair, Ms O’Shea ordered the retailer to pay €29,750 to the former shop manager for lost earnings and a further €3,294.60 for notice pay under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
The total orders against the firm were €33,044.50.
The adjudicator chose to anonymise her decision, citing facts of "a sensitive and a personal nature" in the case.
