Employee claim of unjustified dismissal rejected after ERA decided employer got the process right...

The Employment Relations Authority has rejected an employee’s claim of unjustified dismissal after finding that the employer followed the correct process.

The employee had several allegations raised against him by clients and coworkers. These allegations include inappropriate comments to colleagues and clients, inappropriate touching of a colleague, and general complaints of inappropriate behaviour.

The employee was invited to an initial meeting to respond to the allegations. The employee did not feel the need to bring a support person to the initial meeting. Upon hearing the allegations, he stopped the meeting and requested that the meeting be rescheduled so that he could find a support person.

After the initial meeting the employer received further complaints regarding the employee’s conduct. The second meeting was held three weeks after the first meeting. The initial allegations as well as new allegations of inappropriate conduct were put to the employee.

Following this meeting the employer raised possible suspension with the employee and invited him to a meeting to discuss this possibility.

At the third meeting the employee’s representative protested to the proposal to suspend the employee, stating that it was not an option under his employment agreement. The meeting was adjourned, and the employer placed the employee on paid suspension. The employer stated that this was the only viable option given the seriousness of the allegations.

The employer sent the employee a letter setting out its findings. All but two of the complaints were upheld, and the preliminary decision to dismiss was set out. The employer stated that this was a tentative decision and that no firm decision would be made until the employee had a chance to respond. A meeting was scheduled for the following day.

The employee did not attend the meeting. The employer considered a transfer of the employee as an alternative option but ultimately decided that the only option available was dismissal.

The employee raised a personal grievance claim of unjustified disadvantage, because of the suspension, and of unjustified dismissal.

The Authority decided that because of the seriousness of the allegations, suspension was justified in the circumstances. The employee had vulnerable clients and co-workers who he was an authority figure for and allowing him to continue working during the investigation was found to be potentially harmful to these clients and coworkers.

It was also decided that the dismissal process had been that of a fair and reasonable employer. The employer interviewed all parties to the complaints, put the complaints to the employee, encouraged the employee to give feedback, and considered this feedback.

As well as this, the allegations were said to meet the threshold of serious misconduct and the dismissal was therefore justified.  

The Authority did not award any compensation to the employee.

If there is confusion regarding the correct dismissal process, it pays to seek advice from a professional with experience in the area.

Leading law firms committed to helping clients cost-effectively will have a range of fixed-price Initial Consultations to suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.  At Rainey Collins we have an experienced team who can answer your questions and put you on the right track.