Early school-leavers' programme director wins unfair dismissal case

However, Ms Mulcahy found that the dismissal to be unfair on procedural grounds and has ordered the employer to pay the educational co-ordinator €2,422 - equal to two weeks salary.

After hearing two days of evidence in the case, Ms Mulcahy accepted that the employee committed misconduct and found that he “contributed to a huge extent to his own dismissal” on January 11th 2019.

Ms Mulcahy however found that the employer’s move to engage just one person and not two as provided for in the disciplinary procedure along with the absence of an appeal mechanism fell short of one’s statutory rights under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and that rendered the dismissal to be unfair on procedural grounds.

The complainant was employed as a co-ordinator of an early school leavers education programme and his tasks saw him having responsibility for the day to day management of the centre, staff supervision, leadership, budgeting and financial management.

However, his employer mounted an investigation and later called in the Gardai after a protected disclosure was received on June 29th 2018 that alleged a series of wrong-doings by the co-ordinator.

The education provider dismissed the co-ordinator for gross misconduct on a number of grounds including that he afforded preferential treatment to his wife concerning working hours.

The employer stated that the co-ordinator’s wife continued to receive full pay though she only worked 40% of her timetabled hours and this was known to the husband who was her manager.

The employer stated that the complainant’s wife who is still an employee is repaying the sum of €50,000-€60,000 to the educational provider for overpayment for leave and actual hours worked.

The employer alleged that the educational co-ordinator “facilitated this wrongful overpayment of wages and holiday entitlements”.

In her findings, Ms Mulcahy stated that she accepted the employer’s conclusions that the complainant facilitated the arrangement whereby his wife could have reduced hours without any reduction in salary and that, furthermore, she could benefit from paid leave entitlement way in excess of her contractual entitlements.

The man was also sacked concerning items that went missing from the premises and were put up for sale on adverts.ie.

The items listed for sale included bicycles, steppers, guitars, and a fridge which had disappeared from the employer's premise.

The employer stated that around €2,000 – a sum approximating the value of the sale of such items -was found in the employer’s safe after the complainant had been placed on protective leave and it was not in the safe prior to the matters being put to the complainant.

In her findings, Ms Mulcahy found that the educational co-ordinator was unable to give a credible explanation for how the property disappeared from the premises.

Ms Mulcahy found on the balance of probabilities that the employer’s explanation that the complainant, unauthorised, decided to put up items of the employer’s property for sale, retained the money for such sales for a period and that the value of the sale appeared in the employer’s safe without any explanation after he had been placed on protective leave is reasonable.

Concerning allegations that the educational co-ordinator failed to apply petty cash operational procedures, Ms Mulcahy found that the complainant failed to explain how he managed the petty cash system or how it was used and for what purposes.

Ms Mulcahy also found that the complainant displayed a total disregard for his obligation to demonstrate that the employer’s funds were used for the purposes for which they were intended.

Ms Mulcahy also accepted the employer’s conclusion about an unknown loss from the vending machines and that this is attributable to the complainant.