Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Employee v Employer [2013]
Employee v Employer [2013]
Published on: 27/09/2013
Issues Covered: Dismissal
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This case involved an operative in a chemical manufacturing plant in Waterford. The employee claimant had a poor record of absence and had received a series of warnings. He was given a period of unpaid suspension in September 2010 and his employment was terminated with six weeks' notice in December 2010. The claimant appealed. During the appeal process, but not before, the claimant raised his alcohol dependency. The manager hearing the appeal rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was the first time alcohol abuse had been raised as an issue and that the claimant had previously turned down offers of counselling, referral to the company doctor and was aware of the employee assistance programme.

The claimant's case was that he'd had stress at work, had difficulty sleeping because of this and had started to self-medicate with alcohol. This had developed into alcohol dependency that he was too embarrassed to raise until he realised the seriousness of the situation.

The tribunal concluded that "a fundamental error was made" by the appellate manager by not taking account of the evidence of alcoholism, albeit the information did not come to light until after the decision to dismiss. The claimant was still under notice - the position could have been monitored. 

The EAT went on to comment that, "A reasonable employer recognises that a fundamental characteristic of alcohol dependency is denial. A reasonable employer recognises that a person with such dependency will not be open about it and will not generally engage... It is the Tribunal’s opinion that, once the claimant finally accepted that he had alcohol issues and proffered this as an explanation at the appeal, an issue had thereby been raised as to whether there was alcohol dependency at such a level as constituted a disability. The employer should have made further enquiry and, indeed, offered the claimant a further opportunity to substantiate his claim that this was a significant factor in or caused his absenteeism."

The EAT awarded €10,000 compensation:
http://bit.ly/18plNDZ 

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 27/09/2013
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 →