In Stephen Loughran v Almac Pharma Services Ireland Limited (ADJ-00059324) the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) ordered the rare remedy of re-engagement, rather than compensation, following a finding of unfair dismissal. While compensation remains the most common form of redress in unfair dismissal cases, this decision demonstrates that an order of re-engagement remains a possibility even where a long period has elapsed since the dismissal and in circumstances where the employer stated that the trust between the parties had broken down. This decision is also a good decision in relation to fair procedures and investigations.
Facts:
The Complainant was employed as a Production Operator and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following a physical altercation with a third-party food delivery driver on the Respondent’s premises on 7 March 2025. The incident arose after a food delivery arrived significantly later than expected, after the Complainant’s break had already ended. The Complainant accepted that he used offensive language towards the driver and that a physical confrontation followed after the driver struck him. The Complainant maintained throughout the disciplinary process that he had acted in self-defence.
The Respondent’s position was that the Complainant’s actions on 7 March went beyond self-defence. They concluded that he had escalated matters and, having been struck once, responded with a number of punches while the driver was retreating. The Respondent found this constituted gross misconduct warranting summary dismissal. The Respondent also relied on the offensive language used, together with the potential reputational impact of the incident occurring in front of company property. The dismissal was upheld on appeal.
The Complainant brought a claim to the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 (“the Acts”). Although he had initially sought the remedy of compensation in his WRC complaint form, he confirmed during the hearing that he wished to return to work.
Decision:
The WRC Adjudicator, Breiffni O’ Neill, found that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. On the substantive issues, the Adjudicator concluded that the employer had not reasonably assessed the CCTV evidence and had overstated the extent to which the Complainant’s actions went beyond self-defence. The Adjudicator reviewed the footage and observed that the entire physical exchange between the Complainant and the driver lasted approximately six seconds. The Adjudicator did not think the disciplinary panel’s conclusion, that the Complainant could have walked away, was reasonable considering the driver only backed away momentarily in the short exchange. The Adjudicator commented that “treating that brief movement as a meaningful opportunity to disengage requires a level of reflection and decision-making that is not realistically available to someone who has just been punched and is still in the middle of an unfolding physical altercation.”
The Adjudicator considered that the employer had also relied in the disciplinary and appeal outcome letters on the offensive language used by the Complainant during the exchange and speculative reputational concerns in justifying the dismissal (that the incident could have been viewed by visitors or passers-by). However, the Adjudicator noted that this aspect of the allegations was based on speculation rather than actual reputational harm. The Adjudicator found that the isolated incident of offensive language, considered against the overall circumstances, was not conduct that would lead a reasonable employer to conclude that the employment relationship was beyond repair.
The Adjudicator also identified several procedural deficiencies, some “imperfections” and others to be regarded as serious procedural defects. The Adjudicator highlighted in particular that Mr Canavan, Head of the Dundalk site, was appointed to chair the disciplinary hearing when he had already conducted the initial evidence-gathering and had been involved at the investigation stage. The Adjudicator accepted the Respondent’s proposition that the full range of natural justice rights does not automatically arise at the preliminary fact-finding stage of a disciplinary process. However, the Adjudicator considered the fact that Mr Canavan re-visited the investigation with the Complainant. relied on his own investigation and then proceeded to decide the outcome of the disciplinary process. He found the concentration of functions in one individual across the disciplinary process to be a serious procedural defect and it was his view that Mr Canavan was “the architect” of the process from beginning to end. The Adjudicator was critical of the passive role played by the Respondent’s HR function during the process, as little more than a note-taker, and commented that usually HR involvement guards against precisely the conflation of roles identified above.
The Adjudicator also referred to other procedural deficiencies, including a failure to address a material inconsistency between the Complainant’s account and the witness evidence during the investigation, the expansion of allegations after the investigation had concluded. The Adjudicator found that Mr Canavan had effectively re-investigated the matter at the disciplinary stage but failed to re-interview the witnesses in light of the contradictory evidence given by the Complainant. The Adjudicator also examined shortcomings in the appeal process, for example the appeal chair’s reference to a finding which had not been made by the disciplinary panel and the interruption of the Complainant in the appeal hearing by the Head of HR regarding his argument about bias, when her role was that of ‘notetaker’. Taken together, these defects were found to have deprived the Complainant of a fair process.
The Adjudicator considered the case law relied upon by the Respondent in support of their proposition that procedural imperfections do not automatically render a dismissal unfair, and that the relevant question is whether the defect was so prejudicial as to undermine the fairness of the process as a whole. This proposition was accepted by the Adjudicator; however, he distinguished the present case from the cases referred to by the Respondent in that the identified defects were not minor or technical in nature. In the Adjudicator’s view the defects in this case went to the independence, even-handedness and factual integrity of the process itself and he contrasted the circumstances with Accenture Ltd v Kowouvi UDD254 where the imperfections (failure to clarify relevance of the CCTV footage and to interview certain witnesses) were found not to imperil the fairness of the outcome.
Turning to redress, the Adjudicator noted that under the Acts the following remedies are available:
The Adjudicator declined to order reinstatement, which would mean the Complainant would be entitled to backpay for the full period out of work. The Adjudicator found that the Complainant’s use of grossly offensive language towards the driver amounted to serious misconduct in its own right (independent of the physical altercation that followed) and considered that full restoration of pay and service would not be appropriate. However, the Adjudicator considered re-engagement to be the appropriate remedy. In reaching that conclusion, the Adjudication Officer referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in An Bord Banistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v The Labour Court and Aodhagán Ó Súird and the Department of Education that re-engagement is an exceptional remedy which “requires a clear and balanced explanation detailing precisely why a relief which is out of the ordinary is being granted in a particular case.”
The Adjudicator considered the circumstances in this case and found that there was no objective impediment to the Complainant’s return to work notwithstanding senior management’s asserted loss of trust and confidence. Particular weight was placed on the absence of any breakdown in workplace relationships, as the altercation was with a third-party delivery driver with no continuing presence in the Respondent’s workplace. The Complainant’s supervisor at the time had also since left the Respondent’s employment. The Adjudicator noted the central decision maker in the decision to dismiss the Complainant, Mr Canavan, was several reporting levels removed from the Complainant’s day-to-day working environment. Finally the Adjudicator considered the Complainant’s own personal circumstances, where he had been out of work for a prolonged period and had been forced to return to live with his mother in a small village. His ability to find alternative employment had also been restricted by the fact he does not drive. The Adjudicator noted “compensation, however calculated, does not address his most pressing difficulty, which is the absence of paid work itself” and that “the Complainant has paid a huge price for conduct that was of his own making, and I am satisfied that the time has now come for that price to be brought to an end.”
The WRC therefore ordered that the Complainant be re-engaged in his role (or an equivalent position) at the Dundalk site within six weeks from the date of the decision, with the period between dismissal and re-engagement treated as unpaid suspension.
Takeaway for Employers:
This decision highlights that, while re-engagement remains an exceptional remedy under the Acts, the WRC may be prepared to order it where there is no objective barrier to a return to work and where compensation is considered insufficient to address the consequences of an unfair dismissal. This decision is also a useful resource in its detailed consideration of procedural defects in a disciplinary process and whether these defects are significant enough to ultimately undermine the fairness of the entire process.
Links
WRC Case
AOC article on Supreme Court decision [2024] IESC 38 An Bord Banistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v The Labour Court and Aodhagán Ó Súird and the Department of Education
Authors – Tara Kelly and Anne O’Connell
10th September 2026
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.