EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Philips Uzoma – claimant UD1656/2013
against
GZ Professional Security Limited - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. O’Leary BL
Members: Mr. F. Cunneen
Mr. N. Dowling
heard this case in Dublin on 4 February and 30 April 2015
Representation:
Claimant:
Mr. Pat McMahon, B.P. O’Reilly & Co., Solicitors,
Coric House, Tallaght Village, Dublin 24
Respondent:
Mr. John Connellan, Carley & Connellan, Solicitors,
10 Anglesea Street, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
An unfair dismissal claim was brought to the Tribunal but the respondent contended that the claimant had been fairly dismissed due to poor performance.
Summary of the Evidence
The claimant worked as a Security Operative since April 2000 under contract to a fast food restaurant chain. He came to work for the respondent under a Transfer of Undertaking, according to his contract of employment on 22 June 2011.
The first incident relating to the claimant’s position occurred on 11 October 2012. According to the respondent he walked off the premises and left the client without security cover for more than an hour. The respondent regarded this behaviour as unprofessional and unacceptable in a person with 10 years’ service on the job. The claimant’s version of this incident was that his colleague who was scheduled to report for duty at 11pm was habitually late. The claimant complained to the Operations Managing Director on several occasions but the situation did not improve so he took this action to highlight his difficulty. When asked by the Tribunal whether the claimant was paid for the extra time worked the Operations Managing Director said yes while the HR Managing Director said no. The claimant received a warning which he did not appeal.
At a later date the claimant was transferred to another branch of the fast food restaurant chain. He was unhappy with the transfer. His requests to be moved back were unsuccessful.
The claimant received a Written Warning and was suspended without pay for a week following a telephone conversation with the HR Managing Director in which it was claimed that he was rude and threatening. The claimant denied that he spoke inappropriately to the HR Managing Director. The claimant did not appeal the Written Warning because he wanted to keep his job.
On 16 July 2013 the Operations Managing Director wrote to the claimant informing him that the client was unhappy with his performance of his role. In evidence the HR Managing Director told the Tribunal that this letter was intended as a Final Written Warning but these words were not included in the letter.
The Operations Managing Director again wrote to the claimant on 24 July 2013 inviting him to an investigation meeting to discuss allegations of his poor performance on the job. The claimant was dismissed by letter dated 6 August 2013. The claimant was not given copies of witness statements relied on in the investigation and the Tribunal noted that these statements were obtained later than 24 July 2013.
The claimant appealed the decision to dismiss him. The respondent referred the documents to a third party to hear the appeal. The decision to dismiss the claimant was upheld but the third party tasked with the appeal made no contact with the claimant.
The claimant felt aggrieved that his pay was unilaterally reduced from €13 per hour to €11 per hour in May 2013. At around the same time his hours of work were reduced. The respondent said that at that time he had been their highest paid operative but made no economic case for the reduction.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced and documents handed in over the course of the Hearing.
The respondent in this case had documented procedures in place for dealing with allegations against an employee. The Tribunal finds that in this case the claimant was dismissed without resort to any procedures at all. The Managing Directors made the decision to dismiss the claimant before conducting the investigation into his performance at work. The appeal of the decision to dismiss was wholly inadequate, and because the claimant was given no opportunity to put his version of events, could not be described as fair.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded the sum of €20,000.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)