EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Muredach Doherty UD519/2012
against
Business Mobile Security Services Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. F. Murphy
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Mr. T. Gill
heard this claim at Castlebar on 7th November 2013 and 29th January 2014
Representation:
Claimant:
Ms Martina Weir, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1
Respondent:
Ms Edel Stewart, Human Resources Generalist, Senaca EU,
Unit 12m, Tougher Business Park, Newhall, Naas, Co. Kildare
Respondent’s case:
The respondent is a security firm and the claimant was employed as a security officer from 1st September 2006 until he was dismissed on 5th December 2011 for gross misconduct.
The respondent had an employee hand book which outlined the disciplinary procedure in place at the time of the claimant’s dismissal. A copy of this handbook had been supplied to the claimant. One of the things defined as gross misconduct in these procedures is conviction of a criminal offence. The claimant pleaded guilty in a court of law to an incident which amounted to “false imprisonment and assault, causing harm”. This letter also referred to the code of conduct and employees an employee’s responsibility to “ensure that any actions taken by employees are such that they will not bring discredit on the company, the client or fellow employees”. Therefore the respondent felt they had no option but to dismiss him. A letter of dismissal issued to the claimant informing him of this decision and his right to appeal.
The claimant appealed the decision to dismiss him and on the day of the appeal hearing the union representative failed to turn up, however the claimant was happy to go ahead with the appeal hearing without his union representative.
The appeal officer upheld the decision to dismiss on the basis of the conviction alone being gross misconduct and the appropriate sanction being dismissal.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant’s position was that he was unfairly dismissed and that a lesser sanction could have been imposed by the respondent. The criminal court had not imposed the ultimate sanction on the claimant.
On the day of the appeal hearing the claimant was not happy about proceeding without his union representative but did agree to do so. The claimant felt that the respondent did not take account of his good work record and told the Tribunal that the offence he had committed was completely out of character for him.
The claimant’s PSA licence has been renewed subsequent to his conviction even though the Licencing Authority is aware of the claimant’s conviction.
The employee hand book that was relied upon during the disciplinary process has not been agreed by the Trade Union and the previous hand book made no reference to a criminal conviction being classed as gross misconduct.
Determination:
The claimant’s case fails because the incident complained of resulted in a criminal conviction and was clearly in breach of the company policy and constituted “Gross misconduct” in line with the respondent company’s terms and conditions of employment.
The Tribunal finds that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 To 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)