Mark Brennan M&S WRC Decision: Why His Dismissal Was Unfair?

The Mark Brennan M&S WRC decision found that a long-serving sales adviser was unfairly dismissed after his staff discount credentials were used 73 times in six weeks. Mark Brennan said his then wife had secretly copied the discount details from a tablet and shared them with relatives and acquaintances without his knowledge.

The Workplace Relations Commission found that Brennan had been careless in allowing access to the credentials, but adjudicator Michael McEntee concluded that dismissal was an excessive response. Brennan received €2,000 after the starting compensation figure of €4,000 was reduced by 50% because his own carelessness had significantly contributed to the circumstances.

The case arose in Ireland and involved Irish employment law. It was not a UK employment tribunal decision, although UK employers and employees may still find the wider lessons about investigations, evidence and proportionate disciplinary action useful.

Key Highlights:

Key Point	What Happened
Employee	Mark Brennan, a sales adviser with more than a decade of service
Staff discount activity	Credentials used 73 times in six weeks
Period examined	31 October to 17 December 2024
Brennan’s explanation	His then wife copied and shared the credentials without his knowledge
Discount value	€464.39 in shopping discounts
Dismissal date	6 February 2025
WRC finding	Dismissal was unfair and an “excessive penalty”
Compensation	€4,000 reduced by 50% to €2,000

The decision therefore did not clear Brennan of all responsibility; instead, it found that his carelessness did not justify the most severe disciplinary sanction.

What Was the Mark Brennan M&S WRC Decision?

The WRC upheld Brennan’s unfair-dismissal complaint and found that losing his job was a disproportionate response to the conduct established in the case.

Brennan had worked for the retailer for more than a decade. Internal auditors identified what the employer’s representative, Judy McNamara, described as “serious anomalies” in the use of his staff discount credentials. Over six weeks, the discount was used 73 times, sometimes simultaneously in different geographical locations.

The adjudicator accepted that Brennan had been careless with the tablet that allowed his then-partner to access the discount credentials. However, the central question was not simply whether misuse had occurred. It was whether dismissal was a proportionate sanction for Brennan’s own conduct.

Under Irish unfair dismissal law, a dismissal is generally regarded as unfair unless the employer can show substantial grounds that justified it, subject to the legislation’s detailed provisions.

Decision And Award:

Stage	Outcome
Complaint	Unfair-dismissal complaint upheld
Initial redress	€4,000
Employee contribution	50% reduction for carelessness
Final compensation	€2,000

The outcome reflects the WRC’s two-part conclusion: Brennan contributed significantly to the situation, but dismissal was still too severe.

Why Did M&S Dismiss Mark Brennan?

The employer treated the repeated use of Brennan’s staff discount as a serious integrity and policy issue. Its case centred on the scale and pattern of the transactions rather than one isolated purchase.

The 73 Uses of the Staff Discount

According to the evidence reported in the case:

• The credentials were used 73 times between 31 October and 17 December 2024.
• Some uses reportedly occurred simultaneously in different locations.
• Only one transaction during that period was linked to Brennan’s own payment card.
• The discounts claimed through the account totalled €464.39.

These figures gave the employer clear grounds to investigate how the staff benefit was being accessed.

Why Did the Activity Raised Concern?

• An employee discount is normally restricted by workplace rules governing who may use it and how access must be protected.
• Repeated use by other people can therefore raise questions about unauthorised access, employee responsibility and whether a workplace benefit has been deliberately shared.
• Brennan’s case, however, was that he had not knowingly given his credentials to a wider group. That distinction between intentional sharing and careless access became central to the later WRC decision.

The Disciplinary Process

• The company investigation began on 8 January 2025. Brennan was dismissed with notice on 6 February 2025, and that sanction was confirmed in March after an internal appeal.
• The employer was therefore entitled to investigate the unusual discount activity.
• The dispute ultimately concerned whether the evidence justified dismissal rather than a serious but lesser disciplinary penalty.

How Did Mark Brennan Explain the Repeated Discount Use?

Brennan’s trade union representative, Mandate divisional organiser Eoin Coates, submitted that the discount credentials had, without Brennan’s knowledge, been copied by his then domestic partner and made available to members of her family and other acquaintances.

Coates told the WRC: “The discount card had been, unbeknownst to him, copied by his then domestic partner and made available to a wide circle of her family [and] acquaintances.”

Brennan said that once he discovered what had happened, he stopped his partner from using the discount and offered to repay the €464.39 in discounts claimed through his account.

His position was therefore not that he had taken every reasonable precaution. He admitted being “careless with the tablet computer” that had enabled access to the staff discount credentials.

That admission was significant because it gave the WRC a basis for finding that Brennan had contributed to the circumstances. At the same time, the adjudicator distinguished careless access from knowingly allowing a large group of people to misuse the scheme.

Why Did the WRC Find the Dismissal Unfair?

The WRC found that dismissal went too far when Brennan’s actual conduct was assessed in context.

Proportionality in the Disciplinary Decision

• Adjudicator Michael McEntee described the dismissal as an “excessive penalty” and referred to dismissal as the “nuclear option”.
• He wrote that it seemed excessive to treat as a dismissible offence the careless act of allowing a domestic partner to misuse a staff discount scheme without the worker’s knowledge.
• That did not mean the employer had to ignore the conduct. It meant the adjudicator considered a less severe disciplinary response to have been available.

Brennan’s Carelessness Still Mattered

• McEntee also stated that “The complainant contributed significantly by his carelessness.”
• That finding is important because the ruling was not a complete rejection of the employer’s concerns. Brennan had failed to safeguard access to a valuable staff benefit, and that failure had real consequences.
• His responsibility was reflected in the reduction of compensation rather than in a finding that dismissal was justified.

Lesser Sanctions Were Available

• The WRC’s official disciplinary procedures code describes a generally progressive range of sanctions, including oral warnings, written warnings, final written warnings and other disciplinary action short of dismissal, while recognising that serious cases may justify earlier dismissal.
• The Brennan decision turned on this proportionality issue.
• The adjudicator considered the misconduct serious enough for discipline, but not serious enough, on the facts found, to justify ending more than a decade of employment.

Why Was Mark Brennan Awarded Only €2,000?

Winning an unfair dismissal case does not automatically produce a large compensation award. Redress depends on the circumstances, including financial loss and the employee’s own contribution to what happened.

The adjudicator noted that Brennan found work quickly with a competitor but faced a prospective earnings loss of €4,600. A headline compensation figure of €4,000 was selected.

That figure was then reduced by 50% because Brennan’s carelessness had significantly contributed to the events leading to dismissal. The final award was therefore €2,000.

The official rules on dismissal redress allow the decision-maker to select appropriate redress having regard to all the circumstances of an unfair dismissal.

The award should therefore be understood as case-specific rather than as a standard payment for workers who successfully challenge a dismissal.

What Does the Decision Say About Employee Carelessness?

The decision shows that carelessness can justify disciplinary action without automatically making dismissal proportionate.

Key Distinctions From the Case:

• Intentional misuse is not necessarily the same as failing to protect access credentials.
• An employee can contribute to workplace misconduct without personally carrying out every improper transaction.
• Lack of deliberate intent does not remove all employee responsibility.
• Serious carelessness may justify a warning or another disciplinary sanction.
• Dismissal must still be assessed against the employee’s actual conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

For businesses, the practical lesson is that responsibility and sanction are separate questions. An employer may establish that an employee did something wrong but still need to explain why dismissal, rather than a lesser response, is reasonable.

What Can Employers Learn From the Mark Brennan M&S WRC Decision?

The case offers a useful lesson in how disciplinary decisions can be scrutinised after an investigation.

Clear Rules for Staff Benefits

• Employers should make staff-benefit policies clear about authorised users, credential security and the consequences of misuse.
• Employees should also understand whether allowing another person access to a device containing discount credentials can itself breach policy.
• Clear rules make later disciplinary decisions easier to explain and reduce uncertainty about expected standards.

Evidence Before Reaching a Conclusion

• Unusual transactions may justify an investigation, but transaction data does not automatically prove who personally carried out or knowingly authorised each use.
• An investigation should test competing explanations and distinguish between deliberate misuse, reckless behaviour and ordinary carelessness.
• The evidence gathered should then support the specific allegation on which any sanction is based.

Choosing a Proportionate Sanction

A disciplinary decision may need to consider:

• The employee’s length of service.
• Any previous disciplinary record.
• Whether the conduct was intentional.
• The employee’s explanation and cooperation.
• The financial or operational impact.
• The degree of carelessness involved.
• Whether a lesser sanction could address the misconduct.

For UK businesses, the UK disciplinary procedure guidance similarly states that employers should follow a fair and reasonable disciplinary procedure before deciding on dismissal.

The legal systems are different, but the general management lesson is similar: the evidence and the chosen sanction should connect logically.

What Can Employees Learn From the M&S Discount Card Case?

Employees should treat staff discounts and other workplace benefits as controlled access rather than informal perks that can be freely shared.

Practical Lessons for Employees:

• Keep staff discount credentials secure.
• Avoid storing access details where another person can easily copy them.
• Do not knowingly share benefits outside the employer’s rules.
• Report suspected misuse as soon as it is discovered.
• Keep records of explanations given during an investigation.
• Read the relevant staff-benefit and disciplinary policies.
• Cooperate with an investigation while clearly setting out disputed facts.

The Brennan case also shows that saying “I did not know” may not remove responsibility where poor security or carelessness helped the misuse occur.

Does the WRC Decision Apply to UK Workers?

No. The Mark Brennan decision is an Irish WRC ruling involving Irish employment law. It is not a judgment of a UK employment tribunal and does not automatically determine how a similar UK case would be decided.

UK unfair-dismissal disputes are assessed under a separate legal framework. Employers in Britain should therefore follow the law and procedures that apply in their own jurisdiction rather than treating an Irish adjudication as binding precedent.

What UK Readers Should Take From the Case?

• The ruling is not binding on UK employment law.
• A similar UK dispute would depend on UK legislation and its own facts.
• Employers should still investigate alleged misconduct fairly.
• Evidence should distinguish suspicion from proven employee conduct.
• The seriousness of the sanction should be considered alongside the seriousness of the misconduct.

The case is most useful to UK readers as an HR and disciplinary-management example, not as a direct statement of UK legal rights.

Conclusion

The Mark Brennan M&S WRC decision centred on a difficult distinction between employee carelessness and intentional misuse. Brennan’s staff discount credentials were used 73 times in six weeks, but he maintained that his then-wife had secretly copied and shared them without his knowledge.

The WRC accepted that Brennan had contributed significantly to the problem by being careless with the tablet that allowed access to the credentials. However, adjudicator Michael McEntee found that dismissal was an excessive penalty and that the employer had gone too far by choosing the most severe sanction.

Brennan’s compensation was set at €4,000 and reduced by 50% to €2,000 because of his own contribution to the events. For employers and employees, the wider lesson is that a finding of fault does not end the disciplinary analysis: the response must still be assessed against the conduct actually established.

Frequently Asked Questions

How Long Had Mark Brennan Worked for M&S?

Mark Brennan had worked for the retailer for more than a decade before his dismissal in February 2025. His long service formed part of the wider context in which the proportionality of dismissal was considered.

How Much Discount Was Reportedly Used?

The staff discount credentials were reported to have generated €464.39 in shopping discounts during the six-week period examined. Brennan later offered to reimburse his employer for that amount.

Who Did Brennan Say Accessed His Discount Details?

Brennan’s case was that his then wife had copied the discount credentials from a tablet and shared them with members of her family and other acquaintances without his knowledge.

Was Mark Brennan Cleared of All Responsibility?

No. The adjudicator found that Brennan had contributed significantly through his carelessness, and that finding led to a 50% reduction in his compensation.

Can Carelessness Still Lead to Serious Workplace Discipline?

Yes. Carelessness can lead to disciplinary action where it breaches workplace rules or creates serious consequences. The appropriate sanction depends on the facts, applicable law, workplace procedures and the seriousness of the conduct.

Is a Final Written Warning Always Required Before Dismissal?

No. Some sufficiently serious misconduct may justify dismissal without a prior final warning. However, decision-makers may examine whether a lesser sanction was reasonably available in the circumstances.

Is the €2,000 Award a Typical Unfair-Dismissal Payment?

No. The award was based on Brennan’s particular circumstances, including his prospective financial loss and the finding that he had significantly contributed to the events leading to dismissal.

Editorial Note:

This article separates Brennan’s account, the employer’s submissions and the WRC’s findings. The case arose in Ireland and is not presented as binding UK employment law. No invented spokesperson quotes have been used. This is informational, not financial/legal advice.

How We Checked?

The information was checked on 14 July 2026 against current reporting, Irish legislation and official disciplinary guidance. Dates, transaction figures, the dismissal timeline and the compensation calculation were cross-checked across available sources.

Direct quotations are limited to wording attributed to participants or the adjudicator in published reporting. Where an official case document was not independently located, the article does not claim that reporting is the original decision text.