WRC Upholds Dismissal of Senior Manager Following Use of Company Resources by His Son

In Dermot Murphy v Murphy International Limited (ADJ-00056936), the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) found that the dismissal of a senior manager, who had facilitated the extensive use of company resources in connection with his son’s private house-building project, was fair. He was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Facts:

The Complainant had worked for the Respondent for approximately 45 years and held the position of Plant Operations Manager at the time of his dismissal. In 2024, the Respondent commenced an investigation following anonymous allegations that company plant and equipment had been used in connection with the construction of the Complainant’s son’s home. The allegations included but were not limited to the delivery of materials to the site which were paid for through company accounts, and the purchase of scaffolding and other items through company systems for use at the residence.

The Respondent’s investigation identified significant improper use of company plant and evidence that company vehicles and drivers had attended the site on numerous occasions and that company plant had remained at the property for extended periods. The Complainant’s son was dismissed in July 2024, and he lodged an Unfair Dismissal complaint with the WRC, in which he succeeded.

Allegations were also made against the Complainant in respect of his involvement in relation to certain transactions and facilitating the improper use of company plant and equipment by his son. The Complainant denied any wrongdoing. He argued that his son held a more senior position in the Respondent, and that the allegations against him were based on “guilt by association”. The Respondent’s position was that at the relevant time the Complainant in fact had a more senior role to that of his son, and that the Complainant had been significantly involved in facilitating the unauthorised use of facilities, in theft and in the misapplication of transport. The Complainant accepted that he was aware that some company resources had been used at the site. However, he claimed that he believed that his son had obtained approval from senior management in respect of certain work, and that certain items paid for by the company were intended to be repaid later. He also claimed that it was not unusual for employees to borrow company plant and equipment for personal use.

Following an investigation and disciplinary process, the Respondent dismissed the Complainant for gross misconduct. The Complainant appealed the decision, but his appeal was unsuccessful. The Appeals Manager was satisfied that the misconduct was serious, that the process had been fair, and that the employment relationship and trust between the parties had broken down.

Decision:

The Adjudicator, Orla Jones, found that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair.

The Adjudicator reiterated the well-established principle that the WRC does not determine whether it would have made the same decision as the employer. Rather, the question is whether the employer’s decision fell within the range of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer in the circumstances.

The Adjudicator placed particular weight on the fact that the Complainant held a senior management role with responsibility for the allocation and oversight of plant, equipment and transport. The Adjudicator also noted that the Complainant had personally assisted in procuring certain materials and services which were subsequently charged to the company and only repaid after the matters came to light during the investigation.

While the Complainant argued that personal use of equipment was commonplace and that he believed his son had managerial approval, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to conclude that the level of company resources utilised was excessive and that trust and confidence had been irreparably damaged.

The Adjudicator concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the employer and was proportionate in the circumstances.

In relation to the Respondent’s process, the Adjudicator noted the Complainant’s challenge in respect of the fairness of the disciplinary process, including on the basis that the same HR representative attended the investigation disciplinary and appeal meetings as note-taker. However, the Adjudicator accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the HR representative’s role was limited to notetaking and that she did not participate in decision-making at any stage. The Adjudicator noted that different managers carried out the different stages, and the Complainant was afforded the opportunity to respond. She was satisfied that fair procedures had been followed, noting that “[f]air procedures are not perfect procedures” and that her role was to decide if the process “conformed to the accepted standard of fairness and objectivity.”

The Adjudicator was satisfied that the dismissal was procedurally fair.

Takeaway for Employers:

This decision highlights the importance that the WRC places on trust and accountability where senior employees are concerned.

The decision demonstrates that employers may be justified in treating the misuse of company resources as gross misconduct, particularly where senior managers are involved and the value is significant, even in situations where an employee has significant service with the company.

The decision also highlights the importance of fair procedures. In this case, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had been afforded fair procedures, whereas in the Unfair Dismissal case that the Complainant’s son brought against the Respondent, the Adjudicator in that case found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. As a result of the different findings in respect of procedural fairness, the Complainant lost his Unfair Dismissal case while his son succeeded in his, notwithstanding that the adjudicators in both cases were satisfied that the dismissals were substantively fair.

It is crucial for employers to ensure that they adhere to fair procedures, particularly in disciplinary processes involving serious misconduct where dismissal is a possible sanction.

• Link to Decision: https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/may/adj-00056936.html
• Link to Decision in the Complainant’s son’s case: https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/november/adj-00054793.html

Authors – Jane Holian and Jenny Wakely

4th August 2026

AOC Solicitors
19–22 Baggot Street Lower
Dublin 2

www.aocsolicitors.ie