EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NO.
Vanessa Conway UD1453/2014
MN754/2014
against
Brinks Ireland Limited
t/a Brinks
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUN NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS 1975 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms M. Levey BL
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr J. Flannery
heard this claim at Dublin on 16th November 2015 and 18th January 2016
Representation
Claimant: Mr Noel Reilly of Gaffney Halligan & Company Solicitors,
Artane Roundabout, Malahide Road, Dublin 5
Respondent: Ms Sarah-Jane Judge B L instructed by
Roisin Bradley of IBEC, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Respondent’s Case
The HR manager gave evidence. The respondent company is a security business providing cash in transit and guard services. There is a collective agreement in place that was negotiated with the trade union SIPTU.
On 19th March 2014 the claimant and two of her colleagues were notified that their positions were at risk of redundancy. Following an objection by their trade union these letters were withdrawn. Meanwhile allegations of bullying and harassment were made against the claimant.
On 23rd April 2014 the human resource manager met the human resource director who told her that he had met with the claimant and she was seeking voluntary redundancy. She was asked to meet with the claimant the following day, 24th April 2014, to conclude her redundancy arrangement. When the human resource manager met the claimant she had a letter of redundancy and a cheque for the claimant’s redundancy. The claimant turned down an offer of having one of her shop stewards accompany her at the meeting. The claimant told the human resource manager that she was considering going to Australia with her family and that she could not wait to get out of the respondent’s employment. The claimant was very loud, aggressive and foul mouthed during the meeting. At the human resource manager’s request the claimant hand wrote a letter requesting redundancy while at the meeting.
When the meeting concluded the human resource manager accompanied the claimant to the cash handling office but did not go in with her as she said good bye to her colleagues. This manager escorted the claimant out of the premises. The claimant drove through the car park waving and beeping continually.
The investigation into the allegations of bullying and harassment against the claimant was never completed. She had been at loggerheads with one colleague for months. It was not progressed after her departure. The human resource manager did not consider delaying the claimant’s departure to enable her to seek advice. She had requested redundancy and had spoken to her union representatives about it. On the day of her departure the claimant had the opportunity to discuss the matter with one of her shop stewards or she could have phoned her union’s help line.
The human resource manager did not offer the claimant the opportunity to go away and consider the offer of voluntary redundancy or to seek advice because the claimant had spoken to the human resource director the previous day and she said she wanted to move on.
A subsequent vacancy within the respondent did not suit or match the claimant.
A human resource director who held a senior management role within the international and domestic arms of the respondent outlined his involvement in this case. By the spring of 2014 he was aware of the complainants levied against the claimant by many of her colleagues. This witness also had some knowledge of a possible redundancy scenario which included the claimant. According to this director the claimant approached him in his office on 23 April 2014 and proceeded to request a voluntary redundancy package. Following a pleasant exchange he then prepared the paper work and a cheque to allow that request be fulfilled. He then wrote a note to himself about that meeting and development and briefly spoke to a human resource manager about the claimant’s case.
During the course of his meeting with claimant no reference was made to having trade union input into this redundancy arrangement. This director was unaware that the claimant was on certified sick leave due to stress at the time and never mentioned that she had been invited to a disciplinary meeting the next day. He told the Tribunal that this meeting as described definitely took place and he was not confusing it or her with meeting another employee under broadly similar circumstances.
A payroll supervisor explained that her section was part of the human resource department within the respondent. This witness who dealt with weekly paid staff attended to medical certificates and accepted that predated certificates were unusual but such a certificate occurred in the claimant’s case in March/April 2014. On 24 April 2014 she observed the claimant happily vacating the premises.
An information technology manager presented a printout to show that the claimant was present and active as an employee on 23 and 24 April 2014.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in March 2004 and by April 2014 she was the assistant team leader in an administrative section of this company. She found herself at the centre of two developments in early 2014 –namely at the receiving end of complaints about the way she interacted with many of her staff and receiving notice that her position was subjected to redundancy. The latter issue was more easily attended to in that when her trade union questioned and objected to this possible development the issue was set aside and dropped. However, the allegations levied against her proceed into an investigation and disciplinary process.
The claimant was the recipient of a letter dated 16 April 2014 from a human resource manager which summoned her to a disciplinary hearing the following week. This summons together with the allegations against her affected her badly as this found this situation horrible and hurtful. Following a visit to a medical centre the claimant was certified sick suffering from stress for the second half of March. The claimant also obtained another such certificate valid for two weeks commencing 20 April.
Notwithstanding she was on sick leave the claimant reported for work on 23 April 2014 as she feared for her job at the time. While there she overheard the cash manager who was a member of the investigation team made highly prejudicial and damming remarks about her giving the message that her employment with the respondent was nearing its end. In accepting and apologising for those comments that manager was then removed from the investigation. That in turn meant a fresh investigation into allegations against her would have to begin again.
The director of service delivery then proposed a voluntary redundancy to her. She indicated her acceptance of such a proposal and the next day met with the human resource manager to discuss and finalise such an arrangement. In telling her what not to write as a reason for that redundancy the claimant scribbled a couple of sentences together in order to conclude this arrangement. At that time she felt unwell, under pressure and added she was not thinking straight. The claimant commented that she never mentioned emigrating nor had any intention of going abroad. Once she wrote down a reason for leaving the human resource manager then gave her a cheque. Shortly afterwards she departed the premises and at the time just “wanted to run” from the respondent due to the stress and anxiety caused by their treatment and those allegations.
According to the claimant she did not meet the director at all during this two day process and suggested he had confused with another colleague he met earlier. Throughout this exit exercise neither she nor the respondent contacted trade union officials. The disciplinary process against her was not pursued and the allegations were untrue.
Subsequent to her cessation the respondent advertised a vacancy for an assistant team leader-a role she said she was capable of and experienced for.
A former colleague of the claimant’s confirmed she had spoken to the human resource director in late 2013 about leaving the respondent and going abroad.
The claimant’s former team leader outlined to the Tribunal the context and circumstances in meeting the claimant on 23 April 2014. The claimant was in a distressed state as she spoke about the comments uttered by the cash manager. The director of service delivery got involved and suggested a redundancy deal to the claimant which she readily accepted. Attempts to locate and discuss this ongoing situation with the human resource director were in vain as he was not found. This witness urged the claimant to be cautious but the claimant “wanted out”.
Two trade union shop stewards gave brief evidence. Both were involved in the allegations against the claimant, one was representing the claimant, and the other the complainants. The first shop steward had no involvement in the claimant’s redundancy deal but added that no employee negotiated their own redundancy. The second shop steward stated that the normal procedure was that the trade union would be involved in some way with the redundancy details of a departing employee unless that employee did not want that involvement. A former operations director also stated that it would be unusual for both the company and the employee not to contact and engage the services of the trade union in a redundancy situation.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced and the documents submitted. Faced with two different versions of the events the Tribunal prefers the respondent’s evidence. There were some deficits in the respondent’s handling of the matter but the Tribunal finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts1975 to 2005 both fail.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)