Anne O'Connell Solicitors | View firm profile
In the recent decision of Krzysztof Machinkowski v Spectrum Telecom Installations Limited (ADJ-00052842), the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) found that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed from the Respondent’s client placement due to the failure of either the Respondent or the client to carry out a proper investigation. The Complainant was on a final written warning at the time and some form of procedure was followed but no witnesses were interviewed in relation to the investigation into the allegation. The Adjudicator also criticised the Respondent for not making sufficient efforts to find an alternative role for the Complainant when its client refused to allow the Complainant work for them.
Facts: The Complainant commenced work as a Lead Rigger Engineer with the Respondent company in August 2020. The Complainant was seconded to Company B following a downturn in the business of the Respondent in late 2023, however he remained an employee of the Respondent.
In December 2023 following complaints and an investigation in relation to the Complainants’ driving, he was issued with a Final Written Warning but was not dismissed. The Respondent also received a number of complaints in December 2023 in relation to his work with Company B, however he continued to work for Company B in January 2024.
On 29 January 2024, the Respondent was contacted by Company B stating that they did not have work for the Complainant. The Respondent determined that Company B were not happy with his work. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was placed on paid suspension while the matter was investigated. During a meeting on 9 February 2024, it was outlined to the Complainant that they had lobbied with Company B for his return to work and had also sought to find him alternative work at other sites to no avail. The Respondent also discussed other roles the Complainant could undertake however, this was deemed impossible as other sites were downsizing. The Complainant was subsequently dismissed on 20 February 2024 and was also unsuccessful in his appeal of his dismissal.
His employment with the Respondent ended on 3 March 2024 and he lodged complainants to the WRC under the Payment of Wages, 1991 and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s dismissal was fair and he was dismissed for ‘some other substantial grounds’, that is, there was no alternative work for him. Ms Conway responsible for HR administration gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. She indicated that Company B did not conduct an investigation concerning the complaints. She conducted an investigation herself; however, when asked for details, she clarified that no witness statements were obtained and the process was carried out via telephone conversations between the Respondent’s general manager and Company B’s operations manager. When asked why this was classified as a dismissal rather than a redundancy, Ms Conway stated that if Company B had been satisfied with his performance, they would have retained him.
The Complainant submitted that he had been treated unfairly by the Respondent in that no proper investigation had been carried out. He further submitted that the efforts of the Respondent in relation to alternative work fell short of what was to be expected as reasonable efforts.
Decision: The Adjudicator, Roger McGrath, upheld the Complainant’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.
The Adjudicator stated that, for an employee working for a client to be dismissed fairly, either the client company must conduct a fair and comprehensive investigation resulting in a recommendation for dismissal, which the employer should then evaluate, or the employer must perform its own thorough and fair investigation that may justify dismissal. The Adjudicator concluded that neither Company B nor the Respondent conducted adequate investigations.
Furthermore, the Adjudicator found that the Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to find a suitable alternative role, stating that reasonable efforts should go beyond a few phone calls and a few e-mails.
The Adjudicator also considered the efforts made by the Complainant to find alternative work and awarded him his full financial loss of €8,100 equivalent to ten weeks salary. The Adjudicator did not take into account the Complainant higher salary in his new job when calculating his financial loss.
The Complainant also succeeded in his Payment of Wages claim, which concerned the unlawful deduction of one day pay in December 2023 which amounted to €192.
Takeaway for Employers: It appears from the decision that there was scant investigation in relation to the complaints against the Complainant and a failure by the Respondent to follow proper procedure. This decision is a reminder that employers are required to carry out fair and thorough investigations adhering to the principles of natural justice in respect of complaints being made against an employee and especially where such complaints may result in the employee’s dismissal. The case also emphasises the requirement of proper procedures in disciplinary matters even where an employee is seconded.
Employers must also make reasonable efforts in seeking alternative roles for employees. The Adjudicator noted that the Respondent in this instance made only a few calls and sent a few emails in their efforts to find alternative work. This was deemed insufficient to warrant reasonable efforts. The Adjudicator stated that “It behoves an employer to do their utmost to find alternative work in circumstances as those outlined above.”
Link – WRC Decision
Authors – Ethna Dillon & Anne O’Connell
31st July 2025
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.