Cleaner’s Hair Dye Leads to €10,000 Award After Unfair Dismissal

A client services manager, **Michelle Murray**, has been awarded €10,000 after she was unfairly dismissed for allegedly falsifying a training record. The case revolved around an incident involving a cleaner sent home for having blue hair dye.

The Blue Hair Incident

The dispute began in March 2023 when **Sylvia Sanchez**, a team leader, arrived at a Dublin City site, where Cagney Contract Cleaning had a “flagship contract” with the Office of Public Works (OPW), sporting blue hair dye. According to **Murray**, client site staff deemed this unacceptable.

**Murray** texted **Sanchez**, “Your hair is lovely, but I can’t allow this on [the site],” telling her it violated the dress code. Subsequently, **Sanchez** left and quit a few days later, the tribunal was told.

Fraudulent Record Allegations

Suspicion arose when an HR manager noticed correction fluid on a training record, which indicated that **Sanchez** had received induction training regarding “extreme hair colours.”

**Sanchez** testified that she did not receive the training and alleged her signature on the document was forged. She also claimed that **Murray** had yelled at co-workers, leading some to quit, and that she was told to change her hair color before returning to work.

Investigation and Dismissal

**Nicole O’Carroll**, a former HR officer, investigated the complaints and concluded that the training record contained “clear fraudulent information provided in a grievance to mislead an investigation.” Other allegations included **Murray** allegedly “shouting at colleagues” and using “vulgar and expletive language.”

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), workplace investigations should be thorough and impartial, ensuring fairness to all parties involved. See EEOC guidelines for best practices.

Tribunal Findings

While adjudicator **John Harraghy** found the company’s investigation “reasonable” and the dismissal justified, he determined the process was unfair. **Murray** was not allowed to cross-examine her accusers, violating natural justice principles.

**Murray** stated she was “ambushed and blindsided” when informed of the allegations upon returning from a six-week absence. She maintained she “did not falsify any document” and had “no knowledge of how it got onto the document.”

Compensation Awarded

Despite seeking over €118,000 in compensation, **Murray** received €5,580 for unfair dismissal. **Harraghy** also awarded her an additional €4,500 due to the company’s failure to provide a full statement of her employment terms when she was hired in 2006.

**Robert Donnelly**, BL, represented **Murray**, instructed by solicitor **James Kavanagh** of **Padraig Hyland & Co**. Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd represented the company.