Unfair Dismissal: Workplace Relations Commission Awards €15k to Man Accused of Being Drunk at Work

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ruled on a recent unfair dismissal case. A man who had been drinking alcohol just hours before starting work and subsequently lost his job has been unfairly dismissed according to the WRC.

The man, who had worked as a welder with a supplier of offshore chemical tanks, had been employed with the company since 2007, and was unfairly let go in September of 2020.

“Stumbling and Very Loud”

The WRC heard how, just hours after arriving for his shift, the man’s manager noticed that he had been acting peculiarly. Another depot manager was contacted, who was told that the employee was suspected of being “under the influence of drugs or alcohol”. In addition, the employee was also said to have been “stumbling and very loud”.

It was then that both mangers sat down with the complainant in a portacabin at the depot, and determined that “he was under the influence of alcohol”, as well as other evidence that they could “detect a smell of alcohol”, the WRC heard.

According to statements in the case, the employee admitted that he had been at a party the night before where he had consumed two beers, but did not take any drugs. The two managers ultimately decided that the man was not fit for work, and he was driven home. The next day, an investigative meeting was held where it was claimed that the employee had been unfit for work the previous day due to being drunk.

The WRC was told that there was “a smell of alcohol from the complainant at this meeting and he was asked if he would take a test”, which he allegedly refused to take unless performed by a GP.

“The complainant admitted to attending a party the night prior to the incident on September 14 and he did not go to bed until 4am”, the WRC heard, and that the allegation was confirmed that the complainant “was under the influence of something and he was then suspended with pay.”

Gross Misconduct

The investigative meeting resulted in a disciplinary hearing at which the complainant was dismissed from his role due to gross misconduct.

In November, the complainant, who had been earning roughly €700-a-week on the job, lodged a complaint with the WRC in Ireland in order to seek compensation for unfair dismissal. In response, the company insisted that it had not acted unfairly in dismissing the employee and the grounds for unfair dismissal were not met. It instead asserted that it had “acted reasonably in the dismissal of the complainant for serious gross misconduct”.

While the WRC agreed that the allegations against the complainant were serious, a number of issues were raised about how the allegations were dealt with. For example, the fact that he had agreed to a medical test to determine his blood alcohol level but only if performed by a GP, was an “adequate response”, according to the WRC. The WRC did not believe therefore that this was sufficient grounds for unfair dismissal in Ireland.

An Adjudication Officer with the WRC agreed to award the complainant €15,000 compensation for unfair dismissal, and that this was “a just and equitable amount having regard to all the circumstances of this case”.

If you sustained an injury or a loss, you can check using either our online claims calculator. You can also make a free enquiry for an assessment without obligation. This service is completely free.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...