A worker who was sacked after being subjected to a "bizarre", unspecified allegation that her actions had threatened the financial viability of her employer's entire business has been awarded €13,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission.
In a decision just published, the tribunal upheld complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Minimum Notice and Terms Employment Act and the Payment of Wages Act by Milka Alves-Da Rocha against her former employer, O'Meara Aspect Design Limited – rejecting a fourth complaint brought under equality legislation.
Giving evidence to the WRC, Ms Alves-Da Rocha said she had to pass a phone call on to her manager, Lynne O’Neill, on 10 August 2022 because she was "unable to catch the name of the caller".
She said she then overheard her manager "ridiculing" her on the phone to the customer by adopting a "mocking tone and accent" and stating: "Me no speak English."
Her solicitor, Gavan Mackay submitted that at a staff meeting in November that year, company director Jamie O’Meara addressed the complainant about how she "interacted with a co-worker" – where he was said to have used a "loud and aggressive manner", telling her that her actions were "ridiculous".
"If you’re not happy, the doors and the gates are open," Mr O’Meara was alleged to have said.
Mr Mackay said his client was told by company director [Jamie O’Meara] in December that because of "some unspecified mistake allegedly made by the complainant he might have to shut the company down" – issuing her with an email requiring her attend a formal investigation meeting the following week.
At the meeting, there was an "insinuation" that Ms Alves-Da Rocha "might be in some way connected to a potential liability for a payment of €100,000" to Revenue which could shut down the company, the tribunal noted.
The WRC ultimately found it was "clear" from the worker’s responses that she had "no knowledge" of what the "speculative questions" at the investigation meeting were about.
In a later letter to her solicitor, the company stated: Ms Alves-Da Rocha "was informed briefly regarding the €100,000 owed to Revenue and also the fact that I have found issues within the accounts".
"This is something that your client had denied knowledge of within the investigation meeting," the letter continued.
She was sacked after failing to attend a later disciplinary hearing, with the company determining she had committed gross misconduct.
Mr Mackay said his client had suffered a "serious breach" of her right to fair procedures as she was given no details of any alleged misconduct and had no chance to consider the case against her, prepare any defence, or arrange for representation.
There was no appearance by the company’s management at a hearing in October this year.
WRC adjudicator Pat Brady wrote in his decision: "The sequence of events leading to the termination of her employment makes for disturbing reading."
It was clear from Ms Alves-Da Rocha’s responses during the investigation meeting that she had "no knowledge of what these speculative questions were about".
He considered it "understandable" that the complainant was "less than forthcoming" on other matters given the circumstances.
"The complainant did not attend [the disciplinary meeting], and while this may have been a mistake, it is hard to be critical of her given the circumstances of this 'star chamber’ process," the adjudicator wrote.
He noted further that the dismissal letter which followed stated that the worker’s failure to come to the disciplinary meeting had a "major impact" on the decision to sack Ms Alves-Da Rocha.
"At the hearing you would have received copies of all the evidence and the results of the following investigations into the incident," the letter said.
"It’s hard to know where to begin with this, but a good place to start is the idea that the respondent considered it acceptable to ambush a person at a disciplinary hearing with previously unpublished information about their conduct at a level that it is ‘deemed to be gross misconduct’," Mr Brady wrote.
He wrote that when the "rather bizarre allegation" was first made that the complainant had "done, or failed to do, something that threatened the financial viability of the entire business" she "was not told what this was".
Mr Brady found the "so-called investigation meeting" which followed bore "no resemblance to what is required in such proceedings" – calling the notes available to him "the most peculiar imaginable".
"There is a degree of skirting around issues, trying to draw the complainant into giving answers to fairly mysterious and poorly formulated questions," he wrote.
He added that it had been "outrageous, almost ludicrous" for the firm to try to ascribe blame to the worker by suggesting in the dismissal letter she had denied it the "opportunity to provide her with the information" by failing to attend the disciplinary hearing.
He said there had been multiple breaches of fair procedure and upheld the Unfair Dismissals Act complaint, awarding Ms Alves-Da Rocha €10,500 for her total claimed losses from the sacking and a further one week's notice pay of €731.
In a further claim under the Payment of Wages Act, Ms Alves-Da Rocha stated that €1,000 had been docked from her final pay packet. She said the sum was connected with payments made by the firm linked to her sponsorship and visa application.
Mr Brady called it an unlawful wage deduction and made an order to the firm in that amount.
The adjudicator added that Ms Alves-Da Rocha had made an error in lodging her fourth complaint about the phone call incident under the Equal Status Act rather than the Employment Equality Act.
He found no prima facie breach of the equality legislation over the incident but said it "ought to have been processed under the respondent’s dignity at work policy".
