Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Eamon Murphy v Michael Connolly & Sons Ltd SuperValu Supermarket [2022]
Eamon Murphy v Michael Connolly & Sons Ltd SuperValu Supermarket [2022]
Published on: 09/11/2022
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

The Complainant had been employed by the Respondent as a Store Manager - he commenced employment on the 19th of September 2005 and his employment ended on the 27th of January 2021.

At the outset, it was accepted at the hearing that the Complainant was an alcoholic. He had a number of alcoholic related issues culminating in a serious incident at work on the 21st of December 2019.  He had been sent home. He saw the company doctor on the 31st December 2019 who certified him as unwell but on the 13th January 2020 he was declared fit for work. The Complainant was extremely remorseful and undertook to attend at AA with no repeat of the alcoholic incidents. Regrettably a further serious alcoholic incident took place at work on the 24th of October 2020. The Complainant had to be assisted home by his colleagues. He immediately entered the Aiseir residential alcoholic treatment programme and remained for a 28-day treatment programme. 

An investigation meeting with the Respondent took place on the 16th December 2020. The Complainant openly admitted that he had been seriously intoxicated on the 24th October 2020.   The Complainant highlighted his successful outcome from the Aiseri programme and that he was now a “changed man”.  A Disciplinary Hearing took place on the 18th of January 2021 which was chaired by Mr Tom Connolly, the Managing Director of the Respondent., Following the hearing, a dismissal letter was issued to the Complainant on the 25th January 2021.

The Complainant submitted that it was clear he was being dismissed and was being refused a reasonable accommodation because, simply, he was an Alcoholic. Mr. Murphy, the Complainant appealed this decision by letter of the 4th February 2020 which was ultimately unsuccessful.

The Respondent emphasised the value that was placed on trust and integrity from all staff. He had always found the Complainant an excellent worker. However, in December 2019 his alcohol problems had come very publicly to the surface. The Company had been very sympathetic and had supported the Complainant in whatever way possible. The Respondent submitted that the weekend of the 24/25 October 2020 was well known in advance as a major Respondent family event. No family management would be present in the store for the weekend. The Complainant was entrusted with full responsibility for the store while the owners were away. This was the weekend that the Complainant choose to bring in large quantity of vodka to consume on the premises. The Respondent submitted that this was an “incalculable” breach of trust.

The Adjudication Officer found the Complainant had been discriminatorily sacked because he was an alcoholic, and that in the absence of precedent in the area, it could not accept the breach of trust as a defence for discrimination. Adjudicating officer Michael McEntee found that Mr Murphy had a “well-recognised disability” in the form of alcoholism and noted that there had been “many” alcohol incidents involving the complainant in 2019.  The Adjudication Officer stated that the Employment Equality Act’s requirements were “paramount”, even in the circumstances of a breach of trust. He found that discrimination on the grounds of disability and failure to provide reasonable accommodation were “proven”.

Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer ordered redress of €39,750 to be paid to the Complainant.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/october/adj-00034343.html

Guidance for Employers

It was accepted by all sides in this case that the Complainant was an alcoholic which is a well-recognised disability. It follows from the disability status that there is then a requirement on an employer to “make a reasonable accommodation” to allow the worker to perform his duties, disability notwithstanding, to the best of his efforts.  This area of law is one which is “largely unexplored” by the courts and this case  demonstrates that unless and until tested in a higher court, breach of contract or breach of trust, as argued in this case, cannot stand as an effective employer defence in an equality discrimination.

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 09/11/2022
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 →