EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
David Hollywood UD1521/2012
Against the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the Case of:
G4S Cash Solutions Ireland Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. J. Lucey
Members: Ms. M. Sweeney
Mr. D. McEvoy
heard this appeal in Cork on 28 February 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
Mr. Martin Corbett, SIPTU,
Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondent(s):
Mr. Damien Cahill, IBEC,
Knockrea House, Douglas Road, Cork
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case was brought to the Tribunal as an employee appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, against Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-122323-ud-12/RG by which the complaint of unfair dismissal was declared to be well-founded and the employer was ordered to pay the employee compensation of four weeks’ pay i.e. €2,294.44.
The appellant employee was employed by the respondent employer from March 2002 until he was dismissed in February 2012. The respondent was in the business of cash transportation. Cash balancing was involved. A customer made a complaint relating to a substantial sum of money. TL (an area manager with the respondent) investigated. Discrepancies were identified. The appellant was suspended. Prior to a subsequent meeting the appellant said that the discrepancies might have been related to the fact that his eyesight had deteriorated. He was ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct. That decision was upheld on appeal.
The appellant’s position was that he had had a blemish-free record with the respondent. After a significant claim by a client of the respondent, the appellant was the only employee interviewed about shortages. He was called to a meeting without being told of the nature of the meeting or that he had a right to be represented by his union. The appellant did not deny that the respondent’s reports appeared to link him to missing money. However, he denied falsifying records or any other wrongdoing. In contravention of the respondent’s policy he was told that the police could be called. This was viewed as intimidatingly unfair.
The appellant was in receipt of disability benefit following his dismissal. The Rights Commissioner’s award of four weeks’ pay for unfair dismissal was appealed to the Tribunal on the grounds that it was “derisory” and that the appellant was seeking to be reinstated or to be made redundant with three weeks’ pay for every year of service in addition to a statutory redundancy payment.
The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation was not contested by the respondent in that the appellant seemed to be solely disputing the redress. The respondent’s position was that reinstatement would not be suitable given that the respondent attributed the dismissal to a fundamental breach of trust and that the appropriate calculation had been made by the Rights Commissioner in assessing compensation.
At the Tribunal hearing the chairman asked both sides what witnesses they had. The appellant’s representative (although accompanied by the appellant) said that he had no witnesses. The respondent’s representative said that he had JC (a HR manager) and the abovementioned TL. All relevant dates were confirmed. The appellant’s representative did not deny that the appellant had been on disability benefit but said that there had been a discontinuation two weeks before the Tribunal hearing.
The respondent’s representative submitted that the appellant was “still on disability” and that his loss was “at a minimum”. The appellant’s representative replied that the appellant was “not on disability”, that he was “no longer on sick certs” and that he was “handing in sick certs for credits”.
The Tribunal now allowed both sides time to consider their positions but no resolution was reached. The respondent’s representative submitted that reinstatement would be “wholly unworkable”.
Determination:
At the hearing the respondent did not dispute the Rights Commissioner’s finding. Neither party called witnesses into evidence. It was indicated to the Tribunal that the appellant was still handing in medical certificates. In all the circumstances and on the basis of submissions by both sides this Tribunal division is satisfied with and affirms Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-122323-ud-12/RG under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, by which the complaint of unfair dismissal was declared to be well-founded and the employer was ordered to pay the employee compensation of four weeks’ pay i.e. €2,294.44.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)