Panagopoulou v The West Cork Hotel Limited

Legislation: Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1997 TO 2007 (the “Acts”)
Jurisdiction/Subject Matter: Capability; Right to Legal Representation

This case involved the dismissal of an assistant manager in a hotel.

The respondent argued that he had had difficulties with the claimant and had spoken to her about her performance. Things did not improve and the respondent gave the claimant a 'verbal warning' that included this information:

"The points that were discussed are as follows:

* Cash handling
* Management ability
* Cost management

The correct action required will be as follows:

* Ensure that all cash is correctly counted and securely stored
* Become more involved in maintaining standards
* Turning off lights and appliances

I trust that these incidences will not occur so that further disruption to the running of the West Cork Hotel is avoided. I trust you understand fully the seriousness of this current situation and that any further misconduct could result in further disciplinary action during the review period”.

Things did not improve. the General Manager described how he discovered a sixteen year old girl who was on work experience in the Hotel carrying out a maintenance audit. She had been instructed to do this audit by the claimant and the claimant had not realised that she was in fact a school girl on work experience and not a trainee receptionist which the claimant thought she was. He also found that
coffee cups had not been cleared from the front lounge and that an extension cord giving power to security cameras in the ballroom had been removed. A written warning was issued.

Things did not improve. The General Manager came to work to find the reception area unattended. Amongst other things, he discovered the claimant, who was due to manage reception, was busy in the office. The night audit was not complete, the Claimant had not “cashed up” the previous night as was her responsibility. The claimant was suspended on full pay and told to attend a further meeting.

The claimant turned up to the meeting with her solicitor, who was refused entry. The claimant was dismissed at the meeting.

Having done many things correctly, the respondent still lost the unfair dismissal case due to procedural failings and the claimant was awarded €3000.

The EAT concluded:

1. The Respondents were justified in reaching the conclusion that they reached with regard to the Claimant’s capacity to do the job she was employed to do.
2. Having arrived at this conclusion they did give the Claimant a reasonable opportunity to improve her performance.
3. The procedure however adopted by the Respondents in dismissing the Claimant was flawed, in that they prevented her legal representative attending the meeting which ultimately led to her dismissal. It is difficult to say what representations might have been made by her Solicitor, however it is possible that a middle ground might have been achieved such as demotion or re-deployment, which might have left the Claimant in a better position than she was ultimately left in. In addition to the foregoing the Respondent failed to advise the Claimant of her right to appeal and consequently the Claimant did not pursue such an appeal. Again such an appeal may have lead to some resolution of the matter.

Full decision:
http://bit.ly/bKLbA3