EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Shane Dempsey UD204/2014
against
Righpur Limited T/A Boru Stoves
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. E. Kearney
Members: Mr J. Browne
Mr J. Jordan
heard this claim at Thurles on 18th February 2015
Representation:
Claimant:
Mr Brian Hughes, Brian D. Hughes & Co, Solicitors,
"Longmall", Slievenamon Road, Thurles, Co Tipperary
Respondent(s) :
Mr. Aidan Dempsey, Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited,
Unit 3, Ground Floor, Block S, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3
Respondent’s case:
The respondent company runs a production plant and the claimant was employed as a machine operator and forklift driver from 1st April 2011 until he was summarily dismissed on 6th December 2013.
On the 5th December 2013 the witness for the respondent (EF) who is a director of the company unexpectedly went to the plant during the night shift and observed the claimant and another employee viewing a video clip of a football match, using social media, on a plasma screen normally used in the operation of a machine. The plasma screen had been blocked from accessing the internet because of the risk of contracting a virus and possibly shutting down production. EF let them know he was there and they went about their business. Some weeks before this the claimant and others had been suspected of using the internet in an office of the respondent while at work and a general warning was issued to all staff at that time in relation to the unauthorised use of the internet in the plant.
The next day (6th December 2013) EF called the claimant to the office and according to EF the claimant admitted using the internet more than once. However the claimant denied having altered the settings on the plaza to allow access to the internet, it previously having been blocked.
The respondent viewed this as a serious breach of the claimant’s contract of employment and a breakdown in trust. The claimant was not given an opportunity to bring representation to the meeting and was not informed beforehand that he may be facing dismissal. At the end of the meeting the respondent handed the claimant a pre-prepared letter of dismissal.
Claimant’s case:
It was the claimant’s contention that he had been called over to the plasma screen by his colleague to view a football clip that went on for one or two minutes and that while he was watching this EF came behind him. The claimant denied that he had told EF that he had used the internet this way in work a number of times previously and told the Tribunal that this was the first time. He also told the Tribunal that he had no part in showing the clip on the plasma screen and that his colleague had admitted doing this at the time to EF.
The claimant was summoned to the meeting on 6th December 2013 without prior warning and was not given an opportunity to be accompanied by anyone else. According to the claimant he did not tell EF that he had used the internet in work previously. The claimant was handed a letter of dismissal at the end of the meeting and was not informed of his right to appeal the decision.
Determination:
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
The claimant was dismissed without fair procedures and contrary to natural justice. The meeting of 6th December 2013 was supposed to be an investigation/disciplinary meeting but the claimant was given no prior notification or an opportunity to be accompanied. The letter of dismissal was prepared prior to the meeting and therefore the decision to dismiss the claimant was a foregone conclusion.
The Tribunal finds that compensation is the appropriate remedy and in all the circumstances awards the claimant €17,500.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)