Cart 0
Login
Ireland
Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Paul Taylor v David Lloyd Leisure Limited [2012]
Paul Taylor v David Lloyd Leisure Limited [2012]
Published on: 27/03/2012
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discipline Contracts of Employment
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
David Fagan
David Fagan
Background

FACTS

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent, a U.K. based company, in or around February 1998. In 2003, he was seconded to Ireland to act as General Manager in the respondent’s Dublin-based leisure club. His letter of appointment for this position stated that his current terms and conditions would remain unchanged, except in the case of legislation relating to Ireland or any overriding European legislation. 

From 2003 to 2008, the club was successfully built up under the management of the claimant and at no point was his style of general management questioned or interfered with. Notably, the claimant was provided with a company credit card but no guidelines, directives or recommendations regarding its usage were ever provided to him by the respondent. This was one example of what the tribunal described as the respondent’s “laissez faire” attitude to the claimant.

Difficulties began to arise in October 2008 when new management practices were introduced by the respondent. In February 2009, the claimant wrote to the C.E.O. of the company highlighting his concerns with the new practices. Subsequently, the claimant’s new line manager received an anonymous letter containing allegations of fraud against the claimant, such as inappropriate expenditure and misuse of the company’s credit card. On foot of these allegations an investigation was initiated which ultimately led to the claimant’s dismissal. The claimant brought a claim before the EAT relying on section 20 the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC which purports to confer a wide range of protective legislation on workers posted to this jurisdiction including Unfair Dismissals legislation. 

The respondent argued that the appropriate jurisdiction for redress was the U.K. and relied on the fact that the claimant took his instruction from a U.K. based company. It was accepted that the U.K. based company was the employer. Further, when the issue of a disciplinary matter arose, it was the U.K. based company which conducted the investigation and made the determination decision. The claimant’s contract of employment recognised that that the claimant may not always work within the U.K. but was silent on what legislation would be applicable in a posting or secondment scenario.

DETERMINATION 

On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the tribunal determined that there was nothing in the Unfair Dismissals legislation which precluded an employee who is dismissed by an employer based outside of Ireland from initiating proceedings under the Unfair Dismissals legislation in Ireland. 

The claimant was provided with a letter in 2003 which set out the general terms of the proposed secondment. The tribunal held that this letter constituted a clear offer of employment which was accepted by the claimant when he moved to Ireland. 

Having determined the jurisdiction issue, the tribunal considered all of the evidence before it and rejected the respondent’s submissions that the allegations and findings made against the claimant amounted to gross misconduct justifying his claimant’s immediate dismissal. While the tribunal accepted that the claimant may well have deserved some form of disciplinary sanction in relation to his conduct, it determined that the sanction imposed was disproportionate.

The tribunal awarded the claimant €280,000 compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts and an additional €19,038.42, or six weeks’ pay under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.

LEGAL REVIEW

This case is a reminder to employers that when any allegations of misconduct are made, regardless of the source, a thorough investigation must be initiated which is governed by the principle of proportionality and fair procedures. The procedure for any such investigation should be clearly set out in the employee’s contract of employment and/or company handbook. The tribunal was unequivocal on this point stating that, “it was extraordinary that the duty of care owed to the employee was disregarded in favour of the views of an unknown entity whose motives can only be guessed at”.

On the issue of jurisdiction, employers should be aware that, notwithstanding the choice of law provisions contained in contracts of employment, employees are generally protected by the legislation of the country where he/she mainly works regardless of any express provision contained in the contract of employment.

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

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

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 27/03/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →