EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
John Kennedy – claimant UD25/2013
WT66/2013
against
Top Security Limited – respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr J. Revington S.C.
Members: Mr F. Moloney
Mr S. Mackell
heard this claim at Dublin on 14th February 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s) : In person
Respondent(s): Mr John Barry
Management Support Services, The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Preliminary Issue:
The claimant was employed by the respondent company as a security guard from 27th February 2012 until 27th June 2012. He contended that he was dismissed from his employment for proposing to engage in trade union activities and that this exempted him from the requirement to have 52 weeks’ service in order to make a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
The claimant acknowledged that the week before the hearing he had received a cheque in respect of public holidays claimed under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismisses this claim.
The claimant gave evidence that after four months’ working with the company he was called to a meeting on 27th June 2012 and dismissed with immediate effect. He was not given any reason for the dismissal and was not offered any appeal or afforded fair procedures. He believed he was dismissed for requesting payment for public holidays. His request to his supervisor for public holiday pay was dismissed. He was informed by an administrative employee sometime in March 2012 that public holidays are only paid if rostered for that day. He did not force the issue as he was on probation. He had not since joined a trade union.
The claimant was cross-examined. He explained that the night prior to being dismissed he had gone to a music concert and on returning home he had had an argument with his wife who would not let him into their home and would not let him get his uniform for work. At 4.30am he let himself into the office premises he was scheduled to start work at from 7am. He later phoned the control office to request a replacement uniform. He explained to the supervisor when he arrived onsite what had happened the night before. He was later brought to a meeting and dismissed.
The respondent’s Operations Manager gave evidence that he dismissed the claimant. He called him to a meeting after speaking to the claimant’s supervisor. It was not acceptable that he had accessed the building at 4.30am. He was in civilian clothes, unshaven and the Operations Manager believed he could smell alcohol on him. For these reasons the claimant failed his probation and was dismissed.
The company recognised trade unions. Other staff members were trade union members and he frequently dealt with trade unions, mainly SIPTU. There was no requirement for employees to join or not join a trade union.
Determination:
Having heard the evidence from both parties the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not establish that his dismissal was due to trade union activity and therefore does not come under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)