An unfair dismissal award of EUR10,000 has been made to a sales manager who had been summarily fired after HR shared a secret recording with the CEO.
Mr Delaney was employed by NSP Expert Lab Solutions, in Seneschalstown (north of Dublin), from 2016 to his termination in May 2024.
Delaney was able to vent his frustrations in a phone conversation with the head of HR during a leave period when he had been signed off as stressed.
Delaney, who was representing himself before Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission confirmed that he had not given his consent for the call being recorded and that the conversation took place in confidence.
He said at an adjudication that he had not been given a transcription of the call nor was he a part of any disciplinary investigation.
Malachy Kearney told the hearing the company had received a protected disclosing, an audio recording between the complainant, and a staff member, in which Delaney raised concerns that were deemed gross misconduct. This led to him being dismissed summarily.
Kearney stated that the recorded conversation showed a breakdown of the employment relationship, and that NSP had no choice but to dismiss NSP.
NSP stated in written submissions that the basis for its disciplinary action was based on protected disclosure.
NSP stated that it reserved the right, in accordance with the provisions of its handbook to bypass any step of the disciplinary procedure if the severity felt justified. In this case, it was determined that the relationship between the company and the complainant could not be repaired, and dismissal was the only option.
NSP’s written correspondence confirmed it had requested Delaney attend its office where a letter dismissing him was read to him. The letter was signed and given to him in hard copy.
The keys, the laptop, and his phone were returned “then and there”, and a taxi waited to take him to home. NSP reported that Delaney received full payment for all holiday pay, monies due and any owed amounts.
Delaney claimed that he had attended an hearing after a decision was made about his future. He was denied the opportunity to participate in the investigation and the disciplinary hearing because it would have been “counterproductive”.
He stated that the decision had been unjust, and that it was not based on a thorough investigation. The process was also not fair and did not follow the principles of natural law and justice. He claimed that he had not been given a fair chance to respond to the allegations and that the process was unfair and fundamentally flawed.
Delaney said that the recording had been made in February 2024, but it was not sent to the CEO until May 2024. After this, it took only 24 hours for him to be dismissed. He believed that the HR head was biased from the moment of the call to the day he was fired.
Conor Stokes adjudication officer, WRC
Delaney cited Re Haughey from 1971, in which the Irish Supreme Court laid out basic rights that a person has to protect their good name in Glover vs BLN.
The law established that a person has the right to receive a copy or any evidence against him/her, to be allowed a cross-examination of the person who made the accusation, to be allowed the opportunity to present evidence to refute the accusations, and to be allowed the opportunity to speak to whoever is doing the investigation or making the decision. This right is to be exercised by oral hearing, unless there are compelling reasons for a different approach.
Conor Stokes, adjudication officer at the Workplace Relations Commission, said in his decision: “Although no oral testimony was given by witnesses of the respondent, the written submission from the respondent indicates that the complaintant was not a party to the investigation or the disciplinary procedure but was called to be’read’ the decision. The complainant confirmed this in his testimony.
“No specific allegations were made to him and he did not have the chance to respond to any complaints or allegations. He was denied the chance to express his views that would have been considered for a fair, impartial decision.
“On the basis that I have stated above, and in the absence any verifiable or oral evidence to the contrary as well as detailing why these fundamental principles were not adhered too, I am convinced that the complainant has been unfairly dismissed.”
Delaney stated that he had been unemployed from the time of his dismissal to the date the adjudication was held for 14 weeks. Delaney provided evidence that his gross pay was EUR1085 per weekly, but he failed to provide any evidence as to his attempts to find alternative employment.
Stokes concluded that, “Having regard to the circumstances, I’m satisfied that compensation of EUR10,000 for loss of earning is appropriate.”
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
