Labour Court Orders Employee Re-engagement Following Flawed Workplace Investigation.

In Joanna Gurtman v Sport Ireland (UDD2624), the Labour Court overturned an earlier Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decision which had found the employee's dismissal to be fair.

The Labour Court determined that significant shortcomings in the employer's investigation, disciplinary and appeal processes had rendered the dismissal unfair. As a result, the employer was ordered to re-engage the employee in her previous position.

The decision highlights the importance of conducting impartial, evidence-based workplace investigations and ensuring that employees are afforded fair procedures throughout the disciplinary process.

Background to the Case

The employee commenced employment with Sport Ireland in August 2017 as a Finance Manager and was summarily dismissed in June 2023 following a prolonged period of workplace difficulties.

The employer raised concerns regarding the employee's attendance, performance of duties, working arrangements and alleged failure to engage with management.

Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve matters, including mediation, an external investigator was appointed in November 2022.

The investigation identified alleged breaches of workplace policies and concerns regarding the employee's conduct, including insubordination.

The employee did not participate in the investigation or attend subsequent disciplinary meetings. The employer proceeded with the disciplinary process, ultimately deciding that dismissal without notice was the appropriate sanction.

The employee appealed the decision, but the dismissal was upheld.

She subsequently brought an unfair dismissal complaint to the WRC, which initially found in favour of the employer.

However, the employee appealed that decision to the Labour Court.

What Did the Labour Court Decide?

The Labour Court overturned the WRC decision, finding that the investigation and subsequent disciplinary procedures contained significant procedural deficiencies.

The Court identified several areas of concern.

1. Failure to Provide Relevant Evidence

The employee had not been provided with important documentation relied upon during the investigation, including witness interview records, HR information and IT-related evidence.

This meant she had not been afforded a proper opportunity to understand and respond to the allegations and supporting evidence.

2. Lack of Impartiality in the Investigation

The Labour Court was particularly critical of the investigation report, which contained speculative conclusions and inappropriate commentary concerning the employee's motivations and mental health.

The Court found that the investigator had made assessments outside their professional competence and that elements of the report demonstrated prejudgment.

3. Failure to Independently Assess the Investigation Findings

The disciplinary decision-maker relied heavily on the investigation report without adequately scrutinising its findings or addressing the employee's written defence.

The subsequent appeal process also failed to remedy these shortcomings.

The Court raised additional concerns regarding the independence of the appeal process, as a member of the appeal panel had previously been involved in matters connected to the employee's grievance and investigation.

4. Employee Non-Engagement Did Not Remove the Employer's Obligations

An important aspect of the decision was the employee's failure to participate in various stages of the process.

While the Court acknowledged this lack of engagement, it emphasised that employers remain responsible for ensuring fair procedures are followed.

An employee's refusal or failure to engage does not automatically relieve an employer of its obligation to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.

Why Was Re-engagement Ordered?

Having determined that the dismissal was unfair, the Labour Court considered the appropriate remedy under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

The employer argued that the employment relationship had suffered an irreparable breakdown in trust and confidence and that compensation would be more appropriate.

However, the Court was not satisfied that sufficient evidence had been presented to establish that the employment relationship was beyond repair.

The Court also declined to order reinstatement, taking account of the employee's failure to mitigate her financial losses following dismissal.

Instead, the Court ordered that the employee be re-engaged in her previous position on the same terms and conditions, effective 42 days after the decision, with the intervening period treated as unpaid suspension.

This distinction is important. Unlike reinstatement, re-engagement does not necessarily restore continuity of employment and remuneration retrospectively to the original dismissal date.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The decision reinforces that the fairness of a dismissal is assessed not only by the reasons for the employer's decision but also by the procedures followed in reaching that decision.

Employers should consider the following:

1. Ensure investigations are genuinely impartial

Investigators should approach allegations objectively, avoid prejudgment and ensure their conclusions are supported by evidence.

2. Provide employees with relevant information

Employees should be informed of the allegations against them and provided with sufficient supporting evidence to allow them a meaningful opportunity to respond.

3. Avoid unsupported conclusions

Investigation reports should distinguish between established facts, disputed evidence and findings. Investigators should avoid making assessments outside their expertise.

4. Maintain independence throughout the process

Where practicable, investigation, disciplinary and appeal responsibilities should be allocated to separate individuals who have not previously been involved in the matters under consideration.

5. Do not rely unquestioningly on investigation findings

Disciplinary decision-makers must independently consider the available evidence, the employee's response and any mitigating circumstances before determining an appropriate outcome.

6. Manage employee non-engagement carefully

Where an employee declines to participate, employers should make reasonable efforts to facilitate engagement, communicate the allegations and evidence, and document the opportunities provided.

7. Remember that dismissal is not always the end of the matter

Where a dismissal is found to be unfair, employers may face an order for reinstatement or re-engagement rather than financial compensation alone.

The WorkWise Perspective

This case provides an important reminder that a workplace investigation is not simply an administrative step before disciplinary action. It is a critical part of ensuring that any subsequent employment decision is procedurally fair and defensible.

Even where an employer believes there are substantial grounds for disciplinary action, procedural deficiencies can undermine the fairness of the ultimate decision.

Of particular significance is the Labour Court's position on employee non-engagement. Employers may understandably become frustrated where employees repeatedly decline invitations to participate in investigations or disciplinary meetings.

However, employers must continue to demonstrate that reasonable opportunities to engage have been provided and that decisions are reached objectively, based on the available evidence.

The decision also highlights the importance of an effective appeal process. An appeal should provide a genuine opportunity to review the fairness and substance of the disciplinary decision, rather than simply endorsing the original findings.

For employers, the key takeaway is clear: a potentially justified dismissal can still be unfair if the process leading to that decision is fundamentally flawed.

At WorkWise HR Solutions, we support employers with workplace investigations, disciplinary and grievance procedures, and complex employee relations matters.

Our approach focuses on ensuring that workplace processes are fair, proportionate and aligned with Irish employment legislation and established best practice.

Need support with a workplace investigation or disciplinary process? Contact WorkWise HR Solutions for practical, professional HR guidance.

Case Reference: Joanna Gurtman v Sport Ireland (UDD2624)

Original WRC Decision: ADJ-00047801

Labour Court Decision: 16 September 2026

Relevant Legislation: Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015

Source: Labour Court, UDD2624

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice.