A sales manager who was summarily dismissed after a covert phone recording with HR was shared with the CEO has been awarded €10,000 (£8,670) for unfair dismissal.
Mr Delaney worked for NSP Expert Lab Solutions in Seneschalstown, north of Dublin, from 2016 until his dismissal in May 2024.
During a period of leave when he was signed off with stress, Delaney received a phone call from the company’s head of HR in which he vented his frustrations.
Representing himself at Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission, Delaney confirmed that he did not give his permission for the call to be recorded and that he understood that the conversation was in confidence.
Covert recordings
Covert recording is not always misconduct, finds EAT
Covert recording during breaks in disciplinary and grievance hearings
He told an adjudication hearing that he was not given a transcript of the phone call, nor was he involved in any disciplinary investigation.
Malachy Kearney, solicitor for NSP, told the hearing that the company received a protected disclosure, a recording of the complainant and a member of staff, where Delaney had raised issues that were considered gross misconduct, leading to his being summarily dismissed.
Kearney noted that the recorded conversation demonstrated a breakdown in the employment relationship and that NSP was left with no option but summary dismissal.
In written submissions, NSP noted that the foundations for the company’s disciplinary action were based on the protected disclosure.
NSP submitted that, as per the provisions in its handbook, the company reserved the right to bypass any step in the disciplinary process if it felt that the severity of the action warranted it. It was decided that, in this instance, the working relationship with the complainant was irretrievable and that dismissal was the only outcome.
Written correspondence received from NSP confirmed that it had asked Delaney to attend the company’s office, where a letter was read out to him dismissing him for gross misconduct. He was handed a signed hard copy of the letter.
His laptop, phone, credit card and keys to the company car were handed back “there and then”, and a taxi was waiting to take him home. NSP noted that Delaney was paid in full for any holiday pay and monies owed.
Delaney argued that he attended a hearing after the decision regarding his future was already made. He was not provided with any opportunity to be involved in the investigation or the disciplinary hearing as it would be “counterproductive”.
He noted that the decision was unjust and was not taken on the basis of a thorough investigation, stating that the process did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and fairness. He argued that he was given no fair opportunity to address the allegation and that the procedure was fundamentally flawed and unfair.
Delaney stated that the recording was made in February 2024 but was only sent to the CEO in May 2024, after which it only took 24 hours to dismiss him. He felt the head of HR was biased in her dealings with him from the time of the phone call until he was dismissed.
On the basis of the foregoing and in the absence of any verifiable oral evidence either to the contrary or detailing why such fundamental principles were not adhered to, I am satisfied that the complainant was unfairly dismissed” – Conor Stokes, WRC adjudication officer
Delaney cited the 1971 case of Re Haughey, to which the Irish Supreme Court in Glover vs BLN in 1973 laid down basic rights to which a person is entitled to ensure their good name.
It established that, at a minimum, a person is entitled to: be provided with a copy of any evidence against them; be allowed to cross examine the person making the accusation against them; be allowed to provide evidence that might rebut the allegations; and be permitted to address whoever is conducting the investigation and/or making the decision. The latter right should be by way of oral hearing unless there are considerable reasons to vary from that.
In his decision, Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer Conor Stokes said: “Although there was no oral evidence given by witnesses for the respondent, I note that the respondent’s written submission indicates that the complainant was not party to the investigation nor the disciplinary process but was simply called in to have the decision ‘read at’ him. This was confirmed by the complainant in his evidence.
“No details of any allegations were put to him, and he was not given the opportunity to respond at all to any allegations or complaints. He was not given the opportunity to make representations that should have been taken into account for a fair and impartial determination of the issues.
“On the basis of the foregoing and in the absence of any verifiable oral evidence either to the contrary or detailing why such fundamental principles were not adhered to, I am satisfied that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.”
As to the level of financial loss, Delaney noted he was unemployed for 14 weeks from the date of his dismissal until the date of the adjudication hearing. While he provided evidence that his pay slip indicated a gross wage of €1085 per week, he did not provide evidence of his efforts to secure alternative employment.
Stokes concluded: “Having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that compensation amounting to €10,000 in respect of loss of earnings is appropriate in respect of the complainant’s loss of earnings.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
