CURRENT LEGAL ARTICLES

Recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decisions involving Cork employers contain an important warning for businesses.

In several cases, employers had genuine concerns regarding employee conduct and believed dismissal was justified. Yet they still lost unfair dismissal claims.

The reason was not necessarily the strength of the evidence.

It was the process.

Employers frequently assess their exposure at the WRC by reference to the underlying facts: was the misconduct real, was the poor performance documented, was the redundancy genuine? While these issues remain important, recent decisions demonstrate that they are only part of the analysis. The WRC increasingly examines whether the employer can show that its decision was reached through a fair, independent and properly documented process.

For employers, the practical lesson is clear: strong evidence is not a substitute for procedural fairness.

The Growing Importance of Process

Irish unfair dismissal law requires employers to establish not only that there were grounds for taking action, but that fair procedures were followed in reaching the decision.

In practice, many employers focus heavily on the merits of the allegation and pay insufficient attention to the integrity of the process itself.

However, recent WRC decisions demonstrate that procedural failures can prove fatal, even where genuine concerns existed regarding employee conduct or behaviour.

Two Cork cases illustrate this principle particularly well.

Case Study One: Independence of Process

Collins v Kevin O’Leary Silversprings Ltd (ADJ-00056653)

In February 2026, the WRC considered the dismissal of a sales executive employed by a Cork motor dealership.

The employer raised serious concerns regarding alleged irregularities involving vehicle transactions and dealership records. The concerns were sufficiently significant to warrant investigation and disciplinary action.

Importantly, the WRC did not reject the employer’s concerns. Nor did it find that the employer had acted in bad faith.

However, the dismissal was ultimately found to be unfair.

A central issue identified by the WRC was the structure of the disciplinary process. The same individual played a significant role throughout multiple stages of the investigation and disciplinary procedure, creating concerns regarding independence and procedural fairness. Additional shortcomings arose regarding documentation and procedural safeguards.

The significance of the decision extends beyond its facts.

The WRC’s focus was not whether the decision-maker was personally biased. Rather, the question was whether the process itself was sufficiently independent and capable of producing an objective outcome.

For employers, the lesson is straightforward:

• The investigator should generally be separate from the disciplinary decision-maker.
• Employees should receive adequate notice of meetings.
• Relevant documentation should be disclosed in advance.
• Decisions should be supported by proper records.
• Appeal processes should be genuinely independent.

A process may be vulnerable even where management believes the outcome was justified.

Case Study Two: Fair Procedures and Third-Party Complaints

Curley v Daly Travel

A second Cork case demonstrates a different but equally important procedural risk.

The case involved a long-serving school bus driver employed by Daly Travel. Following a complaint, a third party imposed a site restriction that significantly affected the employee’s ability to continue performing his role.

The employer found itself in an unenviable position. Much of the relevant information concerning the complaint remained under the control of a third party and was not fully available to the employer.

When the employment relationship ultimately came to an end, the matter proceeded before the WRC.

The adjudication officer was critical of the procedural difficulties that emerged. While concerns were expressed regarding the conduct of external parties, the finding against the employer focused on the employer’s own response.

The key lesson is particularly important for employers.

When allegations originate from:

• customers,
• clients,
• contractors,
• public bodies,
• regulatory organisations, or
• other third parties,

the employer cannot simply rely upon another organisation’s conclusions.

The employer remains responsible for ensuring procedural fairness.

This means obtaining sufficient information to understand the allegation, properly investigating the matter where possible, and giving the employee a meaningful opportunity to respond before making any decision affecting their employment.

Even where considerable external pressure exists, responsibility for ensuring fair procedures generally remains with the employer.

The Common Thread

Although Collins and Curley involved very different factual situations, they reveal the same underlying principle.

The WRC is increasingly concerned with the integrity of the decision-making process.

In Collins, concerns arose regarding the independence of the process.

In Curley, concerns arose regarding reliance on untested third-party information.

In both cases, the employer believed that action was justified.

In both cases, that belief was insufficient.

The critical issue became whether the employer could demonstrate that a fair process had been followed before reaching its conclusion.

This theme is not confined to Cork. Similar issues arise repeatedly in WRC and Labour Court decisions throughout Ireland.

Increasingly, employers appear more vulnerable because of procedural weaknesses than because of deficiencies in the underlying evidence.

Why Employers Lose Cases They Thought They Would Win

One of the most common misunderstandings among employers is the assumption that a strong substantive case guarantees success before the WRC.

It does not.

An employee may have engaged in misconduct.

An employer may have genuine concerns.

The employee may even contribute significantly to the circumstances leading to dismissal.

Yet the dismissal can still be found unfair if the procedures used to reach that decision fall below the required standard.

This is why employers frequently express surprise after receiving a WRC decision.

Their focus is often on whether they were “right”.

The WRC’s focus is often on whether the process was fair.

Why Small Awards Can Be Misleading

Some employers take comfort from relatively modest compensation awards.

That can be a mistake.

Compensation may be reduced where:

• an employee contributed to their own dismissal,
• an employee failed to mitigate losses,
• or other factors justify a reduction.

However, a reduced award does not alter the underlying finding.

An unfair dismissal finding remains against the employer.

The broader consequences may include:

• management time spent preparing for proceedings,
• legal costs,
• disruption to business operations,
• reputational impact arising from a published decision,
• increased scrutiny of HR procedures,
• and greater exposure in future disputes.

The true cost of litigation often extends far beyond the amount awarded.

Employer Checklist: Questions to Ask Before Taking Disciplinary Action

Before commencing a disciplinary process, employers should ask:

✓ Is the investigator genuinely independent?

✓ Is there a clear separation between investigator, disciplinary decision-maker and appeal officer?

✓ Has sufficient information been obtained to properly understand the allegation?

✓ Has the employee received full details of the concerns being raised?

✓ Has the employee been given a meaningful opportunity to respond?

✓ Is every stage of the process documented?

✓ Is there a genuinely independent appeal available?

Addressing these issues at the outset can significantly reduce the risk of a successful unfair dismissal claim.

When Should Employers Seek Legal Advice?

Early legal advice is particularly worthwhile where:

• an investigation involves allegations of serious misconduct;
• the same individual may be required to perform multiple roles;
• allegations originate from a third party;
• an employee is refusing to engage with the process;
• dismissal is being actively considered;
• there are concerns regarding conflicts of interest;
• urgent decisions are required under external pressure.

In many cases, procedural problems can be identified and corrected before a final decision is communicated.

Conversely, once a complaint has been lodged with the WRC, opportunities to rectify procedural deficiencies are often limited.

Need Advice Before Taking Disciplinary Action?

Many unfair dismissal claims are effectively won or lost before a WRC hearing ever takes place.

Issues that appear minor at the time, such as inadequate documentation, insufficient notice, overlapping decision-making roles or reliance on incomplete information, frequently become central issues once a complaint is brought.

Obtaining employment law advice before a disciplinary process concludes can often identify avoidable risks, strengthen decision-making and reduce the likelihood of a successful claim.

Dylan Green & Associates Solicitors advises employers throughout Cork and Ireland on:

• Workplace investigations
• Disciplinary procedures
• Grievance procedures
• Unfair dismissal claims
• Protected disclosures
• Workplace discrimination matters
• Redundancy and restructuring processes
• WRC and Labour Court proceedings

If you are considering disciplinary action, responding to a workplace complaint or managing a complex employee issue, early legal advice can often be significantly more effective than defending proceedings after they have commenced.

To arrange a confidential employment law consultation, contact Dylan Green & Associates Solicitors on 021 470 8570 or email info@greensolicitors.ie.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does strong evidence guarantee that a dismissal will be upheld?

No. The WRC examines both the evidence and the fairness of the process used to assess that evidence. A dismissal may be found unfair where important procedural safeguards are absent.

Can the same person investigate and decide a disciplinary matter?

While this can occur in smaller organisations, it creates additional risk. Separation of functions remains one of the strongest protections against later allegations of procedural unfairness.

What if the complaint comes from a client or customer?

Employers should ensure they possess sufficient information to understand the complaint and give the employee a meaningful opportunity to respond before making any decision.

Does a low compensation award mean the case was low-risk?

Not necessarily. Even where compensation is reduced, the employer may still face legal costs, reputational consequences and an unfair dismissal finding.

When should an employer seek legal advice?

Ideally before any final disciplinary decision is made. Early advice provides the best opportunity to identify and address procedural concerns.

About Dylan Green & Associates Solicitors

Dylan Green & Associates Solicitors advises employers throughout Cork and across Ireland on employment law matters, including workplace investigations, disciplinary procedures, grievances, workplace disputes, discrimination claims, unfair dismissal proceedings and representation before the Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court.

Our experience shows that employers often encounter difficulties not because they lack legitimate concerns, but because procedural issues emerge during the decision-making process. Early legal advice can frequently identify and address those risks before they develop into costly litigation.

Dylan Green & Associates Solicitors

Waterfront Square, Horgan’s Quay, Cork
Telephone: 021 470 8570
Email: info@greensolicitors.ie
Website: www.greensolicitors.ie

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every employment matter depends on its own facts and employers should obtain specific professional advice before making decisions concerning disciplinary action, dismissal or workplace investigations.