In Joanna Gurtman v Sport Ireland (UDD2624), the Labour Court overturned the Workplace Relations Commission’s (“WRC”) decision (ADJ-00047801) which had found that the Complainant’s dismissal was fair and resulted from her conduct over a lengthy period. The Labour Court held that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed due to the fundamentally flawed investigation that was not scrutinised at either disciplinary or appeal stage which relied heavily on the flawed investigation report. The Respondent was ordered to re-engage the Complainant in her same position before dismissal on the same terms and conditions 42 days after the date of the decision and to treat the intervening time as unpaid suspension.
Facts:
The Complainant was employed as a finance manager by the Respondent from August 2017 until she was summarily dismissed in June 2023. The Respondent justified that the Complainant’s conduct was wholly or mainly the reason for her dismissal. The Complainant argued that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
The dispute arose in January 2022 when the Respondent had not heard from the Complainant for a prolonged period of time and it was unsure whether she was working or absent. During a welfare Zoom meeting in February 2022, she raised a number of concerns which she was told by HR would be addressed upon her return to work. However, the Respondent submitted that when she returned to work in April 2022, she refused to attend a meeting with her manager, and she also did not perform her work duties. Mediation had to be arranged but this was unsuccessful. The Respondent maintained it made multiple attempts to engage with the Complainant in relation to her return to work and to discuss her grievance and facilitated meetings, but the Complainant did not attend or engage.
Subsequently, the Respondent conducted a disciplinary investigation in November 2022 and appointed an external investigator. The investigation recommended disciplinary action for breaches of policies, working location and insubordination. The Complainant did not engage with the investigation or attend the health assessments arranged for her to determine her fitness to participate in the process. A disciplinary officer was later appointed but the Complainant failed to attend the disciplinary meetings. The officer relied on the investigation report and concluded that dismissal without notice was the appropriate sanction.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant appealed her dismissal but did not attend the appeal hearing advising she was unfit to participate and requested it to be conducted in her absence. The appeal panel upheld the decision to summarily dismiss the Complainant.
The Complainant maintained that the dismissal was unfair. She claimed the decision was solely based on the investigation report which failed to properly consider her version of events and contained prejudicial findings concerning her conduct, motives and mental health. It was further submitted by the Complainant that the disciplinary decision-makers failed to consider her written defence, medical evidence, clean disciplinary record and mitigation. She also questioned the independence of the appeal given the appeal decision-maker’s prior involvement in matters connected to the dismissal.
Decision:
The Court referred to Allied Irish Banks v Purcell [2012] 23 ELR 189 and Hennessy v Read & Write Shop Ltd UD192/1978 which explained that it is not for the Court to consider whether it would have dismissed the employee, but instead its role is to determine whether dismissal was a reasonable response open to the Respondent.
The Court was highly critical of the investigation. It was found that the Complainant was denied fair procedures and natural justice during the investigation process. The threshold for fair procedures for such an investigation had not been met. The Complainant was not provided with key material relied upon by the Investigator at any stage of the investigation, such as HR timeline, IT material and witness interview minutes.
The Court did acknowledge the lack of engagement by the Complainant with the investigation process, but the power given to the Investigator to decide if further action is required imposed an obligation on the Respondent to ensure fair procedures are applied. Although the Complainant did not participate in the investigation, the Investigator is still obliged to ensure she was fully informed of what is being considered and is given the opportunity to respond. The terms of reference expressly provided for disclosure of the evidence and an opportunity to comment on the findings before the final report is issued. These procedural steps were not complied with by the Investigator. Instead, only a bullet point introduction of concerns without any substance was provided to the Complainant.
Furthermore, the investigator report contained significant conjecture, prejudgement, prejudicial remarks and conclusions which the Investigator accepted she was not qualified to make. In particular, the Investigator made inappropriate comments regarding the Complainant’s motives and mental health notwithstanding that she was not qualified to make such assessments. The report also contained contradictory conclusions where on one hand it found that the Complainant had done no work for the Respondent for 11 months but was working abroad during an overlapping period.
Given the procedural failings of the investigation, the Court explained that a robust disciplinary process was required to be undertaken by the Respondent to overcome these failings. However, both the appeal and disciplinary stage failed to address these deficiencies as they failed to challenge the report whatsoever. The investigation report and/or process was not scrutinised during the later processes. The disciplinary process made no regard to the Complainant’s written defence, and the conduct of the appeal process did nothing to address the shortcomings at the earlier stages of the process. The Court also raised concerns regarding the independence of the appeal process as one of the members of the appeal panel had prior involvement in the Complainant’s grievance and investigation. It was not satisfied that she was an appropriate member of the appeal panel. It was concluded by the Court that the dismissal fell outside the band of responses open to a reasonable employer and was unfair.
Redress:
In relation to redress, the Respondent argued that compensation was the more appropriate redress since “the actions of the Complainant destroyed the Respondent’s trust and confident in her” and that she destroyed the mutual trust and confidence to the employment relationship. This was rejected by the Court due to insufficient evidence demonstrating an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence. However, the Court also refused to order reinstatement since it was found that the Complainant made no effort to mitigate her loss following the dismissal. The Court decided that reengagement of the Complainant into her previous position on the same terms and conditions was the most appropriate remedy in all the circumstances, effective 42 days after the decision.
Takeaway for Employers:
This decision highlights the importance for employers to ensure that investigations remain impartial, evidence-based and procedurally fair, even where there is non-engagement by an employee. Employees should be informed of the allegations and evidence against them and be given the opportunity to respond. Where an investigation is flawed, the disciplinary and appeal stages should independently address the shortcomings and should not rely solely on the investigation report. An employee being absent from or not engaging with the investigation process does not excuse procedural failings, and a flawed investigation can undermine an otherwise legitimate dismissal.
In addition, employers must provide evidence demonstrating that the employment relationship is genuinely beyond repair when arguing against reinstatement or reengagement on the basis of a breakdown in trust and confidence.
Link:
Labour Court Decision
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/september/udd2624/
Authors- Erlan Li and Anne O’Connell
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.