Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>DHL Express (Ireland) Ltd v Michael Coughlan [2017]
DHL Express (Ireland) Ltd v Michael Coughlan [2017]
Published on: 17/08/2017
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discipline
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This case involved a claim of unfair dismissal. The complainant, a courier/van driver had been summarily dismissed following an incident involving his van in October 2015. The complainant had previously been involved in a number of incidents which had resulted in both a written warning and a final written warning.

Following the October 2015 accident an investigation meeting was held by the Service Centre Manager. During this meeting, CCTV footage was reviewed (but it had failed to record the incident) and the complainant himself admitted that he had misjudged the space available to him when driving. Subsequently, a letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to attend a disciplinary hearing and was advised that the incident could be considered as gross misconduct as it was potentially a failure to protect and safeguard company property.

At the disciplinary hearing the complainant once again admitted responsibility for his actions. However, extensive reference was made, by the Respondent's representative, to the complainant's past driving incidents and the historic final written warning. Following the meeting the complainant was informed by letter that he was being summarily dismissed, with immediate effect, for gross misconduct.

That letter also recited several additional grounds justifying the decision to dismiss the complainant, including the previous warnings which had long expired. The complainant appealed the summary dismissal but this failed.

The Court found that the decision to summarily dismiss the complainant on grounds which were not referred to at either the investigation stage or in the initial letter was questionable. Likewise, the final decision was based on different grounds than those which formed the basis of the disciplinary process. The Court emphasised that the complainant's misjudgement while driving did not belong to the category of 'very bad behaviour of such kind that no reasonable employer could be expected to tolerate the continuance of the relationship for a minute longer', particularly given the fact the complainant was permitted to drive the company vehicle for 2 weeks after the incident.

The Court concluded that the sanction of summary dismissal was disproportionate, unfair and unwarranted, particularly given the fact that the complainant's previous incidents clearly influenced the respondent's decision. The complainant was awarded compensation of €72,042.88.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2017/July/UDD1738.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 17/08/2017
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →