With redundancy activity unfortunately an inevitable consequence of COVID 19, as a number of businesses are unable to re-open or are now operating with fewer employees, it is critical that the redundancy process is managed in line with legislation and best HR practice to ensure that additional costs do not arise for employers for unfair dismissal claims due to unfair selection for redundancy.

As investigations have become more and more common and necessary in the workplace to deal with issues such as complex grievances, allegations of bullying and harassment, breaches of operational standards and potential misconduct, it is critical that they are conducted in a fair and procedurally correct manner, to ensure that they don’t contribute to a flawed procedure if investigation findings ultimately lead to the dismissal of an employee. Here are some of the key aspects which should be considered to help ensure any investigation procedure is robust and stands up to scrutiny:

As the WRC and Courts have continued to highlight deficiencies in workplace investigation practices, and employers have to deal with the implications and costs of inadequate investigations, this short article summaries some key points to consider when setting up a workplace investigation.

This article outlines some key considerations when setting up a workplace investigation, whether it is to deal with alleged misconduct, a bullying or harassment complaint or an employee grievance. Taking time at the outset to ensure that an investigation is correctly framed and structured, will help ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and that outcomes will be robust and stand up to scrutiny if challenged.

This recommendation by the Labour Court (LCR21798) is a very useful reminder about the significant potential cost of not adhering to fair procedures when terminating employment during the probationary period.

The Labour Court recently rejected an appeal by a hotel worker that his summary dismissal for breach of IT & Security Policies was unfair and confirmed that the decision to dismiss was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer with regard to the employee's conduct and that his dismissal was not unfair (Determination UDD 1839).

A recent case published by the WRC confirmed the high standards required to ensure that the principles of natural justice are fully adhered to during workplace investigations (Ref ADJ - 00004127)

The Labour Court appeal case of Noonan Services Group & Elvira Kravcova (Ref UD D1637) highlights yet again the need for employers to fully review relevant occupational and medical evidence that is available in respect of whether employees are fit to carry out their duties and to consult fully with employees prior to making a decision to dismiss.

A newly recruited golf ranger was dismissed on his second weekend of work without any notice after commencing a six month fixed term contract on 18th April 2015. As he did not have the required 12 months service to take a claim under the Unfair Dismissal legislation the complaint was brought under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (Ref ADJ - 0000066).