Manager Wins €10,000 After Unfair Dismissal Over Cleaner’s Dyed Hair – A Lesson in Due Process

Manager Wins €10,000 After Unfair Dismissal Over Cleaner’s Dyed Hair – A Lesson in Due Process

A manager has been awarded €10,000 in compensation after she was unfairly dismissed for sending a cleaner home over her blue hair dye.

Michelle Murray worked as a client services manager with Cagney Maintenance Service Ltd for 17 years. In March 2023, she asked a team leader, Sylvia Sanchez, to leave a prominent Dublin event site after turning up with blue-dyed hair. According to Murray, this went against the dress code.

Murray claimed Sanchez had completed induction training, which outlined the policy on “extreme hair colours.” But Sanchez denied this. She said her signature on the training record was forged. She also told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that other staff had dyed hair, including one with “purple and green” tones.

📋 Tipp-Ex and False Records

A HR officer investigating the issue noticed Tipp-Ex on the attendance sheet, raising concerns about fraud. The company claimed Murray had altered the document to show that Sanchez was trained on the dress code policy.

Murray denied these claims. She said she had no part in changing any document and had no idea how the Tipp-Ex got there.

In August 2023, following an internal investigation, the company dismissed Murray. The WRC later agreed that while the dismissal seemed “reasonable,” it was still unfair because Murray was not given a chance to challenge her accusers in person.


⚖️ A Dismissal Without Due Process

The WRC noted that denying an employee the chance to cross-examine their accusers breaches fair procedure.

Even though the company’s investigation reached a reasonable conclusion, the way it handled the process failed to meet the standard of natural justice.

As a result, the adjudicator ruled the dismissal unfair and awarded Murray €5,580 in compensation. She also received €4,500 because the company never gave her a full written statement of her employment terms, breaching the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

Murray had sought over €118,000 but admitted she had only worked one day a week since losing her job, so as not to exceed the Carer’s Benefit threshold.


💡 Key Takeaways for Employers

  • Fair procedures must be followed, even when there is a strong case.
  • Employees have the right to respond to accusations and cross-examine witnesses.
  • Proper documentation and clear induction records are essential.
  • Failure to meet legal obligations around written terms of employment can result in additional awards.

📌 At Employment Matters, we help employees and employers navigate disputes with fairness, transparency, and legal accuracy. If you’re facing a similar issue, our team can help.

Not Sure If You’re Ready?
Talk to Us First.