UD208/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                             CASE NO.

Grzegorz Zwolinski                                                                                        UD208/2013

                                                            - Claimant

against

G4S Cash Solutions Ireland Limited

                                                            - Respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms. F. Crawford BL

Members:     Mr. E. Handley

                     Ms. M. Mulcahy

heard this claim at Dublin on 29^th May 2014

                                         and 1^st October 2014

Representation:

Claimant(s) :  Marcin Szulc, Rostra Solicitors, 78, Benburb Street, Smithfield, Dublin 7

Respondent(s) : Paul O’Brien, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86, Lower Baggot Street,

                        Dublin 2

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Background:

The respondent company is a security company that supplies the transport of cash and support services to clients. The claimant was employed from March 2007 as a cash-in-transit operator until his dismissal in September 2012.

Respondent’s Case:

One of the two Joint Branch Managers (GF) of the respondent’s premises located in Dublin 8 gave evidence. At the time in question the claimant worked from these premises with another 130 to 140 colleagues.

GF explained to the Tribunal that the claimant had received full training on commencement of his employment.

A number of complaints were received by GF over a number of weeks relating to the claimant. On the 24^th July 2012 he wrote to the claimant inviting him to an investigation meeting to be held on the 26^th July 2012. GF included a list of the complaints regarding the claimant’s conduct and behaviour –

“The incidents are as follows:

1. 18^th May - inappropriate message left on (MT’s) voice mail.
2. 19^th May – Complaint from (ET) regarding attitude on hangar floor.
3. 21^st May – failed to complete service at (Client), Clondalkin and never informed control room.
4. 1^st June – Complaint from (MT) regarding attitude.
5. 2^nd July – Complaint from (ET) regarding attitude.
6. 9^th July – Complaint from member of Public regarding driving behaviour.
7. 12^th July – failed to complete services to several (major Client)’s locations. Complaints regarding attitude on the day. Failed to notify control room of issues.
8. 18^th July – report of urinating in rear compound.
9. 21^st July – Complaint regarding attitude and comment made to control room.”

A copy of this letter was also sent to the claimant’s union Shop Steward.

On the 26^th July 2012 GF met the claimant and his union representative. All nine complaints were put to the claimant and he responded to all allegations. GF told the Tribunal that at the conclusion of the meeting he felt that this matter warranted disciplinary action by management. He compiled a report and submitted it to the other joint Branch Manager (AH).

On cross-examination the claimant’s representative questioned when he had received each of the nine complaints. GF replied in sequence of each complaint made –

1. He received it two weeks after it had occurred.
2. He received it “pretty close to the 19^th May.
3. He received it in mid June approximately.
4. He was told on the day it occurred.
5. He was informed on the day it occurred.
6. He had found out on the day it occurred.
7. He found out about it a few days after it had occurred.
8. Relatively immediately after if occurred.
9. He had received an email on the 21^st July.

The second Joint Branch Manager (AH) gave evidence. On receipt of GF’s report he scheduled a disciplinary meeting with the claimant for the 16^th August 2012. A copy of the report and the invitation to the meeting was sent to the claimant and his union representative before they attended the meeting.

At the meeting each complaint was discussed and the claimant gave his explanation for each incident. The claimant explained that in respect of the voice message heard by his colleague (MT) he had not meant anything by the language he had used but accepted that it had been inappropriate. The claimant could not recall the alleged incident where his Supervisor had to ask him three times to complete a task nor could he recall any incident while driving on the M50 motorway.

A letter dated the 21^st August 2012 was submitted to the claimant outlining the complaints and his responses. In the letter the claimant was reminded that he had received a written warning dated the 9^th February 2012 regarding his conduct and behaviour. In this warning letter he was informed that if his conduct and behaviour did not improve it could lead “to further disciplinary action.” AH told the Tribunal that because there had been no improvement in the claimant’s behaviour and conduct and with the combination of nine complaints made since the warning was given to the claimant, there was no alternative but to dismiss him. The claimant was informed of his dismissal by letter and told he could appeal this decision to the Director of the HR Department within seven days.

When asked AH told the Tribunal that he had attended the appeal hearing conducted by the Group HR Director (JF) but did not have any documentation of this meeting. When the claimant’s representative put each incident to AH he replied that a number of the incidents on their own would not warrant dismissal but the culmination of all nine lead to the claimant’s dismissal.

JF, the then Group HR Director gave evidence. (He had since left the respondent’s employment in July 2013).

He told the Tribunal that he had heard the claimant’s appeal of the written warning he had received dated the 9^th February 2012. Both the claimant and the person who had issued the written warning attended the appeal hearing. The decision to uphold the written warning was submitted by letter to the claimant.

JF stated that he had received the claimant’s letter to appeal the decision to dismiss him and the appeal hearing was scheduled for the morning of the 19^th October 2012. When asked, JF said that he could not quite recall the appeal meeting and was not in possession of his notes of this meeting for the Tribunal’s perusal. He told the Tribunal that all his notes and records had been disposed of by the Director who had replaced him in July 2013.

Claimant’s Case:

The claimant gave evidence. He gave a detailed description of his daily duties while employed with the respondent. When put to him he said that he had not received sufficient notice of the meeting he attended on the 9^th February 2012 where he had received a written warning.

He told the Tribunal that he felt he had been dismissed because of the back injury he had incurred while working for the respondent in February 2012.

When put to him he said that he had never attended an appeal hearing in respect of his dismissal and had not received any correspondence regarding same.

He gave evidence of loss.

Determination:

The Tribunal have carefully considered the sworn evidence and submissions adduced by both parties over the two days of this hearing. The Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed in this instance.

Accordingly, the Tribunal awards the sum of €7,500.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)