Sales rep at Coca-Cola dismissed over inappropriate Snapchat messages

Gordon Deegan

A sales representative at the Irish arm of global soft drink brand, Coca-Cola, was dismissed for his offensive action in sharing with colleagues inappropriate language and images via Snapchat.

Now, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Michael McEntee, has dismissed Shane Molloy’s claim of unfair dismissal against Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Ltd.

In his findings, Mr McEntee found that no unfair dismissal had taken place after concluding that the finding has to be that the dismissal was “within the band of reasonableness” for the employer.

Mr McEntee stated that Mr Molloy’s claim of unfair dismissal “has to fail”.

Mr Molloy commenced employment with the Coca-Cola firm on March 31st 2022, and he was dismissed on December 10th 2024 and Mr Molloy’s salary was €39,000 per annum.

Mr Molloy represented himself at the two-day hearing and he accepted that he had instigated and shared with colleagues inappropriate language and images via Snapchat.

Mr Molloy had apologised fully for these actions, which he accepted "were inappropriate and offensive".

The content of the Snapchat messages is not disclosed in the published WRC ruling.

However, Mr Molloy believed that the Coca Cola firm had failed to properly consider the context of the material, his previous exemplary record and had failed to consider any sanctions other than dismissal.

Mr Molloy argued that the messages were largely “banter” between colleagues and never had any intention to hurt or cause offence.

Mr Molloy argued that the penalty imposed was completely disproportionate to the offence.

In addition, he considered that the disciplinary process had breached confidentiality, had suffered from managerial bias, an inconsistent standard was applied where other staff sending messages were not sanctioned, and in general the entire process had lacked what he called “Substantive Fairness and Proportionality”.

On behalf of Coca Cola HBC Ireland Ltd, Ms Mary Fay BL instructed by Sonam Gaitonde of Arthur Cox, argued that a “textbook” and studiously fair investigation and disciplinary process had taken place.

Ms Fay stated that every step was documented, evidence shared, and all opportunities were given to Mr Molloy to advance counter-evidence.

In summary, Ms Fay argued that the investigation and disciplinary process had been exemplary and without fault, and the appeal hearings/investigation were in a similar vein.

Ms Fay argued that the dismissal decision was appropriate and fair for a “reasonable employer,” and reinstatement or reengagement were clearly not viable options.

In his findings, Mr McEntee cited the evidence of a senior Coca Cola HBC executive, Mr O’D, who oversaw Mr Molloy’s internal appeal against his dismissal.

Mr McEntee stated that Mr O’D presented as a most credible and very experienced Senior Manager who comprehensively knew the organisation, its culture and practices.

Mr McEntee stated that on questioning, under Oath, Mr O’D indicated that he had carefully considered the “reasonableness” question.

Mr McEntee stated that it was Mr O’D’s conclusion that reinstatement or re-engagement of Mr Molloy was simply not va iable option for the organisation.