EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Mark Nolan UD1674/2013
against
Veolia Environment Industries Services SAS
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. O'Leary BL
Members: Mr. P. Pierce
Mr. F. Barry
heard this case in Dublin on 13 February 2015 and 5 May 2015
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s): Mr. Mark O’Connell BL instructed by
Ms. Emer B. O'Callaghan, Barry M. O'Meara & Son, Solicitors,
18 South Mall, Cork
Respondent(s): Mr. Bill Austin, IBEC,
84-86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The claimant was a soft services manager who was employed from the start of 2006 to 14 August 2013. It was claimed that the respondent had not observed fair procedures when it allegedly unfairly dismissed him. Fraudulent behaviour and gross misconduct were cited as the grounds for the dismissal but it was contended that the said grounds had not existed.
The respondent’s position was that there had been grounds to justify the claimant’s dismissal. There had been an investigation in July 2013 into the billing process surrounding two invoices for V.I.P. lunches in late 2012. This led to the claimant being suspended.
The investigation was conducted by DOD and MS (two managers with the respondent), the latter acting as a note-taker. The claimant had been given a copy of the respondent’s disciplinary procedures and was afforded the right to representation.
The respondent met with relevant employees in the course of a full investigation. The claimant was given a copy of relevant statements. After dismissal there was an appeal which upheld the finding.
Determination:
The Tribunal heard sworn testimony from many witnesses for the respondent and from the claimant himself. There was unhappiness as to how the claimant was treated. It was not established that no other purchase order had been amended. It was felt that it would have been seen as a blot on the claimant’s copybook if he had passed up the line the issue which ultimately led to his dismissal. It was accepted that there had been no monetary gain to him in what had occurred. It appeared that the claimant tried to solve a problem which he had not created. The Tribunal saw as important what actually happened. The fallout was inchoate in that two employees did not accept the claimant’s strategy for resolving the invoice problem but it was felt that the claimant should not have been put in that position. The two ladies were not under pressure although they could have felt so. It is to their credit that they behaved so correctly and the Tribunal acknowledges this.
The claimant was resigned to his fate in that he realised the potential risk to him but it was felt that there was a lack of proportionality in the respondent’s decision to dismiss him. Notwithstanding, there is no doubt but that the claimant contributed to his dismissal and the prevailing view is that the contribution was very significant.
Allowing the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, the Tribunal, in finding that dismissal was a disproportionate sanction in all the circumstances of the case, deems it just and equitable to award the claimant compensation in the amount of €52,500.00 (fifty-two thousand five hundred euro) under the said legislation.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)