This case is an appeal by the Respondent, Bus Eireann,  against a decision of an Adjudication Officer in respect of a complaint of unfair dismissal by Mr Kenneth Folman (the Complainant). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was well founded and ordered re-instatement.

The Complainant was employed on a full-time basis from the 11th of June 2018 until the 13th of  August 2019 when his contract of employment was terminated. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent informed the Court that they were not contesting the fact that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. On that basis the issues that remained to be considered by the Court were the appropriate form of redress, if any, and the contribution, if any, of the Complainant to his dismissal.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant contributed to his own dismissal. There had been a number of issues with his performance as a Driver since he commenced work which had resulted in him receiving a final written warning on the 5th of June 2019. The Complainant was involved in a Court case where he was disqualified from driving which meant he was unable to carry out the job he had been employed to do. It was the Respondent’s submission that at that stage it felt it had no option but to dismiss the Complainant. The Respondent believed that the trust between the Complainant and the Respondent has been irreparably damaged and therefore re-instatement and re-engagement were not an appropriate redress remedy.

It was the Complainant’s submission that all new drivers have incidents when they are driving and that they build up experience through driving. The Complainant contended that he did not contribute in any way to his own dismissal. The Union, of behalf of the Complainant submitted that he went from a final written warning to dismissal without being given a fair hearing or allowed to appeal the decision through the normal procedures. The Complainant also submitted that if there was a breakdown in trust it was between the Complainant and the Respondent and not the other way around.

In respect of the three forms of redress, the Court considered the submissions and the nature of the incidents that led to the final warning. The court did not believe that re-instatement or re-engagement were appropriate in this case. In this case there were ongoing issues with the manner in which the Complainant was conducting himself whilst carrying out his job.

It was the Respondent’s submission that these issues were raised with the Complainant, and that the Complainant failed to address them satisfactorily. Therefore, the Court considered that compensation would be the appropriate form of redress and, taking into account the loss being claimed and all other relevant factors,  the court ordered the Respondent pay compensation in the sum of €5,000. The Court ruled that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed and the Respondent’s appeal fail.

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/august/udd2152.html