The respondent provides an airport express coach service to and from Dublin Airport. The appellant had two years' driving experience with a private operator before commencing employment with the respondent. The appellant undertook all the relevant training and also attended and passed an Advanced Driving Course.

The respondent's case was that each employee spends three to four weeks driving routes with an experienced driver. The respondent gives emphasis to health and safety, the non use of mobile phones while driving and drugs and alcohol are strictly prohibited. Prohibited electrical equipment includes mobile phones, ear pieces, blue tooth Satnavs, IPODS and IPADs and this is highlighted to all drivers. Employees may refer to The Mobile Communication and Driving Policy as the Mobile Phone Policy.

A customer made a complaint about the claimant's driving and the respondent viewed the CCTV footage. Over a forty to forty five minute period the respondent's witness saw the appellant taking out an IPAD at which point he took his two hands off the steering wheel. He was driving at 100 kmph. Then he saw the appellant had an IPAD in one hand with the other hand on the steering wheel. He saw the appellant on two or three occasions not having either hand on the steering wheel. The appellant then had the IPAD in his right hand and then held the device up to his ear and appeared to be listening to something. The respondent was understandably "horrified".

The claimant's defence was that he was very aware that the use of mobile phones was prohibited while driving and that images posted on notice boards in the company referred to mobile phones only. However, he was not aware of the policy being updated to include an IPAD. He could not recall receiving a copy of the Mobile Communications and Driving Policy until he attended a disciplinary hearing in 2013.

He considered himself to be a safe driver. According to the EAT, "He assessed the situation around him and the road conditions. He picked up an IPAD and activated it. He wanted something to keep him alert and focussed. It was a once off situation. He was consciously checking his mirrors and his vision was not impaired at any stage. He was completely in control of the vehicle on the day. While he acknowledged that he was not driving safely with an IPAD up to his ear, he felt in control of the vehicle. He never felt compromised."

The EAT disagreed and found the dismissal to be fair and was satisfied that the respondent company acted reasonably at all times and that substantial grounds existed justifying dismissal, that is, that the appellant’s actions constituted a serious safety risk and were in clear breach of company policies.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2015/August/UD1223_2014_MN745_2013.html