The respondent is an international transport company transporting dangerous chemical based products. Accordingly the company has obligations in relation to environmental concerns.

The claimant crashed a vehicle into a ditch and was later dismissed. The vehicle was carrying safe chemicals but they could be dangerous if they came into contact with water. 

The respondent's headquarters are based in Switzerland and there was evidence from the respondent that headquarters wanted to see the claimant dismissed, although the witnesses said there was no pressure to dismiss. Evidence was also heard about a leaking sunroof that the claimant said caught him by surprise and caused him to crash the vehicle into the ditch. It was written off. Tachograph evidence showed the claimant had been speeding. The respondent said the leak was a manufacturing problem on all the vehicles and all the drivers were aware of it. The claimant had been reckless in their opinion. The respondent considered that they had gone ‘over and above’ for the claimant in allowing him have an extended appeal, designed to fix any procedural flaws, and have legal representation present.

The claimant argued that shortly after leaving the depot water spilled from the sunroof onto the centre console of the cab where his mobile phone was stored. It was dark and he reached for his mobile phone. When he could not find it he momentarily took his eyes off the road and lost control of the truck. The back axle and trailer then went onto the verge and the vehicle ended up in the ditch. The whole incident took about 6/7 seconds.

The EAT found that the dismissal was unfair but that the driver contributed to his dismissal. It noted that, "...if the respondent had conducted an appropriate and correct investigation and disciplinary hearing, the decision to dismiss may have been justified."

The extended hearing was not enough to rectify faults in this case. The EAT found "...that no disciplinary process took place. The claimant received a letter of dismissal on the 1st November 2011 having heard nothing from his employer concerning the incident between the 25th October 2011 and 1st November 2011. An investigation was conducted without involving him and the owner of the company based in Switzerland made the decision to dismiss based on documents presented to him."
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/January/UD1083_2012.html