1. FACTS
The claimant was employed since 2005 as a crew leader and also worked as a driver for the respondent company who were involved in the insulation business. At the time of the alleged unfair dismissal, the only work the company had was based in Galway and staff were required by the company to stay overnight. The respondent had informed staff that time off for funerals was only allowed for immediate family and this was also stated in the company handbook which the claimant signed.
In January 2010, the claimant learned that his friend had been stabbed to death at the weekend. He informed a Director of the respondent company and the individual responsible for HR of the death and of his desire to attend at the funeral. The claimant was informed that the day off to attend the funeral was refused due to limited staff numbers and it would result on the company being down a day’s work which might affect their contract which they had procured with the ESB.
Despite this, the claimant attended at his friend’s funeral and took the day off from work. On the day he was out, the respondent learned that various work carried out by the claimant had not been carried out completely and in some instances the result was serious damage. The respondent learned about the failures from ESB Inspector reports which the respondent admitted taking at face value, without further investigation. These failures meant extra cost to the respondent. In addition, the respondent lost two private jobs because the claimant was absent from work.
Faced with the issues, the respondent sought legal advice and invited the claimant to attend a disciplinary meeting. The claimant was invited to bring someone with him and he was furnished with a copy of the respondent’s disciplinary procedure. The claimant attended the meeting alone and the he was asked a series of questions regarding his work. Following this meeting, the respondent wrote to the claimant informing him that he was dismissed and of his right to appeal.
The claimant appealed the decision and this time took a representative to the appeal. The decision to dismiss was upheld after the appeal. The claimant gave evidence at the tribunal that he had provided an explanation of all of the issues at the first hearing and that he felt that the respondent was merely going through the motions at the appeal hearing.
2. DETERMINATION
The tribunal found that the respondent did not properly investigate the incidents in relation to the Galway contract and relied solely on the investigation of a third party. Further, the tribunal held that there was no satisfactory reason provided as to why the respondent had skipped the initial stages of the disciplinary process save for the respondent indicating that the issues were of a serious nature.
Applying the British Leyland test which required the tribunal to look at the reasonableness of the respondent’s actions, it was determined that it was not reasonable to move to stage four of the disciplinary process where the potential was for immediate dismissal and therefore it was found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. He was awarded the sum of €5,000 by the tribunal.
The tribunal did however; determine that the claimant contributed to his dismissal for a number of reasons:
* He was clearly in breach of the respondent’s policy on absence.
* Serious issues arose with the claimant’s work in Galway.
* The claimant did not mitigate his loss to any great extent.
3. LEGAL REVIEW
The major failing of the respondent in this case was procedural fairness. The tribunal did not consider that it was reasonable for the respondent to fast-track the disciplinary process regardless of the serious nature of the failures in the claimant’s work. Indeed, the tribunal felt that the respondent overreacted to the gravity of the claimant’s actions. If an employer has a specified or agreed procedure in place to deal with discipline then they ought not to eschew this policy except in the most serious of circumstances meriting summary dismissal.
Employers must always conduct internal procedures in a fair and efficient manner. In this case, the respondent should not have taken the Inspector reports at face value and should have carried out its own investigation into the alleged failures. In addition, the respondent should have followed its own disciplinary code as set out and engaged in each stage of the process. If these steps were taken, all the issues could have been fairly examined and processed at the disciplinary meeting and tribunal might very well have taken a different view.
4. CONCLUSION
This case clearly demonstrates the high burden placed on employers to satisfy themselves as to the veracity of facts in a disciplinary process, and of the importance of following a company’s own procedures.
Full decision:
http://bit.ly/ykAFAI
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
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
