The Labour Court in Aer Lingus Limited v Virginia Linehan (UDD2418) has upheld the Workplace...

The Labour Court in Aer Lingus Limited v Virginia Linehan (UDD2418) has upheld the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision in ADJ-00034556 (CA-00045554-001) that the dismissal of Ms Linehan (hereinafter the “Complainant”) for gross misconduct was fair. The Complainant had appealed the WRC decision to the Labour Court (the “Court”) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015.

Facts: The Complainant was employed as a Customer Services Agent with the Respondent from 13th July 2009 until she was dismissed by the Respondent on 13th May 2021. The Complainant claimed that her dismissal was unfair. This was rejected by the Respondent on behalf of which it was argued that the Complainant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident which occurred on 31st July 2019.

The incident involved the Complainant being verbally abusive to colleagues, calling a number of them “bitches” and “bullies”. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant was aggressive and swinging her arms, resulting in other employees being concerned about the health and safety of staff. It was the Respondent’s position that the Complainant’s behaviour undermined the Respondent’s trust and confidence in her, which trust and confidence was extremely important in a public facing role. The Respondent followed a detailed internal investigation, disciplinary process and appeal, and the Complainant was represented by her Union throughout.

The Complainant accepted that her behaviour on the day in question was unacceptable. Her position was that the matter ought to have been treated as a welfare issue rather than a disciplinary matter, as her Union had requested at the time. She argued that her dismissal arose as a result of her raising a grievance in 2014. She gave evidence that she felt that she was treated less favourably than other employees because of her grievance. The Complainant gave evidence that her behaviour on 31st July 2019 was a stress reaction to “years of bullying”.

Decision: The Court noted the Complainant’s acceptance that her behaviour on the day in question was unacceptable behaviour in the workplace. The Court referred to the decision in Allied Irish Banks plc v Purcell [2012] 23 EL 189 in which Linnane J. stated as follows:

“The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employer to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair.  But if a reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably take a different view”

[quoting Lord Denning MR in the UK Court of Appeal case of British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift]

It is clear that it is not for the EAT or this Court to ask whether it would dismiss in the circumstances or substitute its view for the employer’s view but to ask was it reasonably open to the respondent to make the decision it made rather than necessarily the one the EAT or the Court would have taken”

The Court commended the Respondent’s adherence to its procedures, noting that “[n]o flaws in the process used” were argued before the Court; it was not disputed that the Respondent followed a detailed internal investigation, disciplinary process and appeal. The Court referred to the Complainant’s evidence that she was “stressed” on the day of the incident and to the medical certificate which confirmed that she was in a “distressed state”. The Court further noted the Complainant’s evidence that it was a normal day, and her failure to provide a reasonable explanation as to why she went to the HCC when her lunch request had already been approved. The Court further noted her acceptance, without explanation, that she had refused to engage with attempts to de-escalate the situation. For these reasons, and in circumstances where the Court accepted that the Complainant worked in a public facing role, the Court concluded that the Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Complainant was “within the band of reasonable responses” and found that she was not unfairly dismissed.

Takeaway for Employers: This decision emphasises the importance of fair procedures in dismissal cases. A key factor in this case was the Respondent’s adherence to fair procedures, and to its own internal procedures. This is of utmost importance in conducting a disciplinary process, particularly in situations where dismissal is a potential outcome. The decision is also interesting in highlighting the need to consider the nature of an employee’s role in determining whether or not trust and confidence has been irreparably damaged. The fact that the Complainant’s role was public facing was an important factor in the Court deciding that the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses. While the Court found that the dismissal of the Complainant for gross misconduct was in this case fair, employers should exercise caution before dismissing an employee for gross misconduct. Employers bear the burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases, and the bar is high.

Link - https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/may/udd2418.html

Author – Jenny Wakely