EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD957/2014
APPEAL(S) OF:
Stephen O'Gorman (appellant)
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
App Rathcoole Motors Limited T/A Rathcoole Motors (respondent)
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey B.L.
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr. S. O'Donnell
heard this appeal at Dublin on 2nd September 2015 and 27th October 2015
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s) : Ms. Colette Egan B.L instructed by Mr Richard Stapleton, Smyth Stapleton & Co, Solicitors, O'Moore Street, Tullamore, Co Offaly
Respondent(s) : In person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Summary of evidence
Respondent’s case
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a mechanic from 30th January 2006 until his dismissal on 10th July2013. The respondent, PD, told the Tribunal that on 18th June, 2013 he invited the appellant to a meeting to discuss a number of issues regarding the appellant’s work. A number of incidents were outlined to the appellant at the meeting.
The respondent told that a Citroen Van serviced by the appellant on 15th November, 2011 was released to the customer with a bottom ball-joint completely worn out. The respondent indicated that such an obvious defect should have been noticed by the appellant.
On 26th October, 2012 a Scania Tractor Unit was left in for an oil change, lights and levels to be checked. This work was carried out by the appellant. Two days after the vehicle was released the gearbox failed, requiring the vehicle to be recovered from France, leading to a claim costing in excess of €8,000.
On 9th May, 2013 a Renault van was repaired by the appellant. Part of the work involved the removal and refitting of the crank-shaft pulley, which came loose two days later, presenting a danger to the driver and road users.
On another occasion an incorrect screw was used when fixing a Peugeot 407 which resulted in a puncture to the radiator. This necessitated a replacement of the radiator prior to it being released to the customer.
On 16th June 2013 a Renault Master van required repairs. Part of the job involved the replacement of a track rod end. The van was returned as there was a problem with the steering. Upon inspection, it transpired that a nut had been left off the ball joint.
The appellant was suspended with pay pending investigation and the respondent wrote to the appellant on 19th June, 2013 outlining the issues put to him on 18th June, 2013. A disciplinary meeting was held on 10th July, 2013 involving legal representatives on both sides. The disciplinary process broke down resulting in a letter of dismissal to the appellant on 10th July, 2013.
The respondent indicated that on several occasions he told the appellant that more care needed to be taken in carrying out his work.
No appeal was initiated by the appellant.
Under cross-examination, the respondent accepted that the contract of employment did not contain a formal disciplinary procedure. He did not accept in these instances that guidelines needed to be issued to the appellant in relation to his performance. The respondent denied that the appellant did not have enough time with regard to his work on the Citreon. The appellant was never told he only had a certain amount of time in carrying out works.
With regard to the Scania, it was put to the respondent that the appellant informed the customer about the oil leak but the customer took the vehicle anyway. The respondent stated the appellant fitted the hose but did not check the oil level.
In relation to the Renault Van, the respondent did not accept that the alternator seized, causing the pulley to come out.
The respondent accepted that he may have missed out on the ‘finer points’ in relation to the appellant’s dismissal but the appellant was dismissed because of his incompetence. He did not accept that he was aggressive towards the appellant and disagreed that the appellant’s work should be checked considering he is fully qualified.
Appellant’s case
Giving evidence the appellant stated that in relation to the Citroen van a full service had to be carried out on the vehicle. The appellant told the Tribunal he needed two hours to carry out the service but as the service had to be completed by 5pm he only had one hour to complete the work. When it transpired that the vehicle was returned with the bottom ball joint completely worn out, his supervisor told him had had made a serious mistake and the appellant thought that that was the end of the matter.
In relation to the Scania, the claimant stated that he had no previous experience with this make nor was he given any training. He indicated that the gear box filter was leaking, which he had diagnosed but the customer wanted the vehicle back and the claimant did not get to fit the part.
Regarding the Renault van on 9th May 2013, the claimant explained that as he was not supplied with new crank shaft bolts, therefore the old bolts had to be put back in.
The problem with the Peugeot related to one screw being too long. The claimant thought it would be adequate but it went through the bottom of the radiator. The Supervisor was informed and the part was replaced.
The matter of the Renault Master van in June 2013 was explained by the claimant in that he started to fit the nut but was called away by the apprentice mechanic before finishing what he was doing. The claimant said he regretted his error.
The issues were discussed at a meeting on 18th June 2013 and the claimant was suspended on full pay. A further meeting took place on 20th June 2013 and the claimant indicated that he gave an explanation for all incidences at that meeting. After the disciplinary process broke down the claimant stated that he was dismissed by letter on 10th July, 2013.
Under cross-examination by the respondent, the claimant denied that he told the respondent he had ‘no problem’ with Scania lorries.
The claimant gave evidence of loss and his efforts to mitigate his loss.
Determination
The Tribunal determines that the procedures were unduly informal but in substance the dismissal was fair. Accordingly, the Tribunal upholds the Rights Commissioner’s decision.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)