A former Avoca senior manager has been awarded €2,760 in compensation after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled his dismissal was unfair due to procedural flaws, despite acknowledging his abusive conduct contributed to the termination of his employment. Colin Egan, who worked as a senior team lead for over three years, was dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident at the retailer’s Ballsbridge, Dublin store in November 2023.
The WRC hearing detailed a volatile scene that began after Egan vomited on the store floor during a stocktake. Food hall manager Ivan Judha testified that Egan became “agitated” and began “shouting and screaming” at the store’s general manager, using highly offensive language, including terms directed at her and other staff. Witnesses reported Egan aggressively approached the front door, demanding to be let out and entered the general manager’s office, blocking the doorway while continuing his verbal abuse.
The general manager testified that Egan called her a “f***ing c**t” and described other managers as a “joke” and “r****ds”, leaving her feeling “cornered and uncomfortable.” She stated she feared Egan would damage the glass door during his outburst. After being asked to go home, Egan refused, expressing concern that his colleagues would mishandle the stocktake in his absence.
Following the incident, Avoca initiated an investigation and interviewed Egan and witnesses. He was presented with allegations of serious insubordination, disruptive behaviour, and abusive language. Egan initially denied directing the abusive language at anyone specifically, claiming his behaviour was solely a result of feeling unwell. However, company witnesses disputed this account.
The investigation officer deemed the allegations valid, leading to a disciplinary process overseen by the firm’s finance business partner. The finance business partner stated that Egan displayed no remorse and appeared “indignant” about the proceedings, arguing that being sick did not excuse the use of abusive language. The decision to dismiss Egan for gross misconduct followed.
Egan contested the dismissal, arguing the procedure was flawed and the decision disproportionate. He claimed mitigating factors were ignored and highlighted his previously unblemished employment record. Initially, he denied using the specific offensive terms, stating he did not recall saying “c**ts” and “b***hes,” and definitively denying using the word “r****ds.”
Under cross-examination, however, Egan conceded he had used the word “c**t” “once or twice, tops,” claiming he was thinking of someone not present at the time. He also admitted to using “b***hes” on a couple of occasions and suggested he may have described the situation as “r****ded.” When questioned about the shifting nature of his responses, he stated, “Not really.”
In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer Elizabeth Spelman identified several procedural shortcomings in Avoca’s handling of the dismissal. A key concern was the failure to provide Egan with minutes from witness investigation meetings in a timely manner. Disagreement over the definition of “insubordination” within the disciplinary process also contributed to the finding of unfair procedure.
Spelman concluded that Avoca Handweavers Shops Limited had failed to afford Egan fair procedure, rendering the dismissal unfair. While acknowledging Egan’s conduct contributed to his dismissal, she awarded him €2,760 in compensation. The WRC’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to fair procedures in disciplinary actions, even in cases involving serious misconduct.
