The respondent company is a credit card company with its parent company being US based. The company is heavily regulated. Due to the tight regulations and the compliance required of the company training is provided to all staff on the commencement of their employment and this training is ongoing throughout their service with the company. 

The claimant was employed as a customer specialist and worked within the collections department. The respondent company noted how the claimant was a very experienced employee and was a high performer. Following a review of the inputting of codes on customer codes, the respondent claimed that it became evident that the claimant had failed to correctly input correct action codes on a number of employees accounts. As a result of a subsequent meeting between the claimant’s manager and the claimant, the claimant was suspended pending an investigation into the allegations, as the respondent was of the view that the failure to correctly input codes was unsatisfactory. 

At the disciplinary meeting the claimant argued that he had not been properly trained, he claimed that within his new role on the front line he received around 20 minutes of training for this role. Therefore the claimant was of the view that he had worked to the best of his capabilities considering the lack of training. However, the respondent claimed that upon reviewing the claimant’s file it was evident that the claimant had received significant training on an ongoing basis. 

Following the disciplinary meeting, which lasted 5 hours, the claimant was dismissed as the respondent did not find the explanations for his failure to input the correct codes to be satisfactory. The claimant appealed this decision, but the decision to dismiss him was upheld. 

The EAT concluded that the respondent company acted disproportionately in dismissing the claimant. The tribunal noted how the claimant during the disciplinary process was faced with “allegations of having submitted incorrect action codes, potentially inflating his monthly incentives and breaching trust and integrity”. The tribunal further noted that the respondent accused the claimant of having acting “dishonestly”. The tribunal noted how despite all allegations the claimant had consistently maintained that no malice was intended. Indeed the tribunal noted how the claimant had produced evidence of his concerns which he raised and the tribunal was of the view that the claimant had struggled with this new position within the company. It was for this reason that the tribunal found that the dismissal of the claimant was disproportionate. However, the tribunal panel members disagreed over the amount of compensation that should be awarded to the claimant. 

The dissenting opinion of Mr Morrison suggested that whilst the dismissal was disproportionate he was of the opinion that the claimant contributed to his dismissal, Mr Morrison believed that the incorrect notation codes inflated the claimant’s monthly incentives. It was for this reason that he believed that the claimant should only be awarded €15,000.00. 

The majority opinion however held that when considering all the evidence that “it was difficult to see how the claimant’s actions could have contributed to his dismissal.” Therefore on this basis the majority opinion awarded the claimant €25,000.00 by way of compensation.

To read the full case law review:
http://bit.ly/1veVYpI