The claimant was employed as a night cleaner supervisor at the respondent’s company which is a meat processing plant. The claimant during the course of his employment was involved in a workplace accident. The accident happened when the claimant was in the process of clearing a blocked drain when his arm got stuck in the drain. Despite attempting to free his arm he was unable to do so. The fire brigade freed the claimant's arm after being stuck for approximately 3 to 4 hours; the claimant was then hospitalised for 3 days due to the heavy bruising to his arm. 

The claimant was subsequently absent from work for 3 weeks following the accident and did not receive any sick pay during this absence. On his return to work he asked to work light duties. Despite this, he was forced to complete tasks which he claimed were “heavy cleaning duties”, to be completed without assistance.

Following his return, he brought a claim through his solicitor to the Rights Commissioner Service in respect of wages and overtime which he claimed was owed to him. In addition, he pursued a personal injuries action. The claimant said he was asked by company management to drop his personal injuries claim, which the claimant did. The claimant brought a grievance via his solicitor as a result of the heavy cleaning duties he was expected to complete and this was subsequently investigated by the head of Human Resources. 

The complaints the claimant brought included the following:

1. Failure to pay an agreed wage increase – the respondent did not uphold this complaint
2. Decision to outsource the night cleaning work to a contractor – likewise the respondent did not uphold this complaint
3. The incident of his injury – the respondent did not uphold this complaint 
4. Failure of the respondent to pay sick pay – the respondent noted that this issue was before the Rights Commissioner and therefore Human Resources did not comment on it
5. Treatment by the company following his injury – the respondent did not uphold this complainant
6. Return work – reduction in wages – the respondent found that this was the result of an administrative error and found that the matter had been resolved
7. Return work – light duties and ongoing difficulties - The claimant argued that he could not lift his arm above elbow height. 

The tribunal heard how the respondent hired a private surveillance firm to monitor the activities of the claimant outside of the workplace. In the course of this surveillance the claimant was observed carrying out gardening duties. As a result of this surveillance the respondent was of the opinion that it provided conflicting evidence to the claimant's account and as such the Human Resources manager recommended that the matter should proceed to a disciplinary investigation. Consequently the claimant was suspended on full basic pay.

In the course of the subsequent disciplinary hearing it was concluded that the claimant’s statement in regards to the injuries he sustained were “misleading and untrue”. Furthermore, it was concluded that the claimant had misrepresented his ability to work which was viewed as “serious misconduct”. As a result the respondent held that the claimant’s actions had “irreparably damaged the trust and confidence” which the respondent believed was fundamental to an employment relationship. On this basis the respondent decided to dismiss the claimant. 

The claimant argued that he had not instructed his solicitor to write the letters on his behalf. The claimant denied that he misled the respondent in relation to the nature and severity of his injuries. 

The tribunal concluded that the decision by the respondent to dismiss the claimant “was disproportionate and unreasonable in the circumstances.” On this basis, the tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the claimant was unfair and accordingly awarded the claimant €25,000.00 in compensation.

To view the full case law review: 
http://bit.ly/1sAoEFc