UD1677/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL OF:                                                                                                 CASE NO.

Cornelius O’Callaghan                                                                                   UD1677/2013

 - Appellant                                       

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Top Security

 - Respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Mr. P. O’Leary BL

Members:       Mr. C. Lucey

                        Ms. M. Mulcahy

heard this claim at Dublin on 20^th March 2015

Representation:

Appellant:       Ms. Mary Duffy-King for Mr.Hugh Hegarty, SIPTU,

Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1

Respondent:    John Barry, MD, Management Support Servs., The Courtyard, Hill Street,

                        Dublin 1

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by an employee against the recommendation of a Rights’ Commissioner References:  r-132935-ud-13/JT.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

The appellant was employed as a Security Officer since 2001 and was dismissed on the 25^th January 2013.

This case came to the Tribunal as an employee appeal against a Rights Commissioner Recommendation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

The background to this case was that the appellant had worked as a static security officer at an industrial site doing night shifts. His employment ended after he had been told to expect a visit from MM (his operations manager) but only met MM on the night in question (16 January 2013) after MM had driven onto the site, parked outside the appellant’s security hut, knocked on the window to alert the appellant and formed the opinion that the appellant had been asleep although it was subsequently alleged that the appellant had merely closed his eyes for a minute.

Determination:

The Tribunal heard sworn testimony from three witnesses for the respondent and from the appellant.

The appellant was allowed to remain working on shifts after January 16^th 2013 although the respondent considered that he had grossly misconducted himself. In doing so the respondent is estopped from raising the finding that the trust between them had been broken.

The appellant admitted that he had not been alert when the operations manager had to knock to arouse him at a point when his eyes were closed. Given that the appellant had found new employment and that compensation was the preferred redress of the parties in the event of the Tribunal finding that there had been an unfair dismissal, the Tribunal, in allowing the appeal against a Rights Commissioner Recommendation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, deems it just and equitable in all the circumstances of this case to award the appellant the sum of three thousand euro under the said legislation. The Tribunal felt that the appellant had made a very great contribution to his own dismissal.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)