An employee who was sacked when a recording of him venting his “frustrations” to his company’s human resources chief was sent to the CEO months later has won €10,000 for unfair dismissal.
Thomas Delaney secured the award on foot of a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against NSP Expert Lab Solutions in a decision just published by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Mr Delaney, who lost his job of over eight years with the firm in May 2024, told the tribunal that he thought his conversation with its HR chief in February that year was “in confidence” and that he never consented to a recording.
Representing himself at a WRC hearing in August 2024, he explained that he was “off on stress leave” at the time of the call and said that he “vented” frustrations over the phone.
RM Block
His evidence was that the company’s head of HR was “biased in her dealings” with him from the phone call to his dismissal.
Mr Delaney told the WRC the recording was made in February, but “was only sent to the CEO in May”. Within 24 hours of the recording been sent to the chief executive, he was dismissed from his €56,000-a-year job, he said.
His position was that the disciplinary process followed by his employer was “based on assumptions”, “flawed”, and lacking in “transparency”. He pointed out that he was given “no opportunity to respond to the case” and was subjected to a disproportionate sanction.
He said he never received a copy of the transcript of the phone call relied on to dismiss him and had no opportunity to address its contents or any allegations against him.
Company solicitor Malachy Kearney submitted that the firm received a “protected disclosure” in the form of “a recorded conversation between the complainant and a member of [its] staff”.
“In that conversation, the complainant had raised issues that were considered to amount to gross misconduct. Arising from this, the complainant was summarily dismissed,” Mr Kearney submitted.
“As per the provisions of its handbook, the company reserved the right to bypass any step in the disciplinary process if it feels that severity of the action warranted it,” Mr Kearney submitted.
“It was decided that in this instance the working relationship with the complainant was irretrievable and that dismissal was the only outcome,” he added.
The dismissal was effected by asking Mr Delaney to report to the company’s offices, whereupon a letter of dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct was read to him, Mr Kearney submitted.
The complainant was then required to surrender his laptop, phone, credit card and company car keys, before being sent home in a taxi, Mr Kearney explained.
The tribunal noted that there was “no oral evidence” provided by company witnesses.
Adjudicator Conor Stokes noted on the basis of the company’s written submissions that Mr Delaney “was not party to the investigation [or] disciplinary process”.
He was “simply called in to have the decision ‘read at him’,” and had no opportunity to respond to any allegations or complaints against him, or to make representations on his behalf.
He concluded that Mr Delaney had been denied “a fair and impartial determination of the issues” and that the employee was unfairly dismissed.
The adjudicator noted Mr Delaney’s loss of €1,085-a-week gross pay over a 14-week period of unemployment between dismissal and a WRC hearing in August 2024, and a lack of evidence of efforts to seek alternative employment during that period.
Mr Stokes concluded that “compensation amounting to €10,000 in respect of loss of earnings” was the appropriate award.
