In this case the claimant worked for the Respondent company who operates a country house with its principle business being weddings. The claimant had been employed by the respondent company for over 12 years when an incident occurred that resulted in the claimant being dismissed. The tribunal heard conflicting evidence from the claimant and the respondent about an incident that occurred early one morning following a wedding the night before.

The claimant stated that he was clearing rubbish and it was thought he was being too loud. The claimant stated that he was approached by the witness/managing director who was pushing him in the chest and instructed him to stop working. Following a verbal exchange the witness/managing director left. The claimant denied being told to calm down.

Later that morning the claimant telephoned the witness asking him for an apology and arranged to meet him in the laundry room. The claimant met with the witness where the Financial controller, his wife, accompanied the witness. The claimant submitted that the company director was spitting into his face and asked him for the keys of the van. The claimant threw the keys to him and denied any physical contact with the director to the tribunal.

The next morning the claimant met with the Financial controller about the situation and she accused the claimant of ‘acting like a baboon’ and being aggressive. However, the claimant stated that he did not ‘act like a baboon’ and that both parties used colourful language and she asked him to leave the premises. Following this incident the claimant engaged a solicitor and did not attend any further meetings as the witness, who was directly involved in the incident, was chairing the meeting. The claimant complained that this was not fair procedure.

By letter the claimant’s employment was then terminated for alleged aggressive behaviour towards the Managing Director and Financial Controller of the respondent company. However, in evidence the managing director on behalf of the respondent company indicated that the claimant was dismissed primarily arising out of his failure to engage with the disciplinary process.


Determination

For the purposes of its deliberations the Tribunal considered the issue from the perspective of a dismissal for aggressive behaviour and for failure to engage in a disciplinary process initiated by the respondent company. The Tribunal was satisfied that, procedurally, it was entirely inappropriate that the disciplinary process would be conducted by the managing director and financial controller, the two complainants against the claimant and, in the case of the managing director, a principal participant in whatever engagement occurred.

In the circumstances, the Tribunal could not fault the claimant for failing to engage with such a fundamentally flawed process and the tribunal preferred the evidence given by the claimant as to what occurred and had issues of credibility with some of the evidence given on behalf of the respondent company.

The claimant’s allegation that he was unfairly dismissed was well founded. By way of compensation the Tribunal awarded the claimant the sum of €30,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007. Further, the claimant was awarded the sum of €2,178 in lieu of six weeks' minimum notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.

Read the full case review here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2015/July/UD1598_2013_MN783_2013.html