UD1548/2014

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                    CASE NO.

Carlton Crabtree                                                                                                UD1548/2014                                            

  -          Claimant

against

Morus Limited T/A The Metro Hotel

-             Respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms P. McGrath B.L.

Members:     Mr. L. Tobin

Mr. N. Dowling

heard this claim at Dublin on 22^nd December 2015 and 8^th February 2016

Representation:

Claimant:         In Person

Respondent:    Ms. Michelle Ryan, Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors,

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Determination:

The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced. The claimant had brought a claim under the Unfair Dismissals legislation on foot of his summary dismissal which was notified to him on the 30^th October 2014 following an investigative and disciplinary process.  

The claimant was engaged as a food and beverage manager at the respondent’s hotel in and around August 2013. He was, in effect, in the number 2 management position in the hotel with all the attendant seniority and responsibility which might be expected to be attached to the position.

The claimant’s job history was not without incident and in particular the claimant was out on extended sick absence during the summer of 2014 and the claimant’s diagnosis was for tuberculosis which had a knock on effect in the workplace where all of his colleagues were compulsorily tested for TB. This was a highly unusual situation and it seems that some of the claimant’s colleagues were upset by the exposure to TB and blamed the claimant.

The Tribunal accepts that the claimant was made to feel badly for what had happened and the Tribunal acknowledges that the comments received were borderline hostile.

It is worth noting that the claimant received at least one anonymous letter which – and the Tribunal never had sight of same – appears to have had threatening overtones and in particular suggested the claimant and his family return to Africa and take their disease with them.        

The claimant was understandably upset by the increased pressure put on him by persons known and unknown in the workplace. The claimant communicated his upset and an investigation was put in train, (CCTV footage was looked at) and in a move to ensure understanding and reconciliation a medical expert was brought into the workplace to give some understanding and perspective on the tuberculosis virus. The claimant acknowledged that this medical talk did serve to reassure people.

The author of the anonymous note was never discovered and although the CCTV footage seemed to point to one co-employee, nothing was ever substantiated. The claimant in his evidence was clearly embittered by the company’s failure to protect him over this spiteful note and in subsequent events believes that the company applied double standards in their treatment of employees.

The claimant and the General Manager had always had a good working relationship and the claimant conceded that the GM was good to him while he was in hospital and in dealing with other personal difficulties including his sick wife.

In October 2014 the GM had cause to reprimand the claimant over cleaning and maintenance of the kitchen and bar areas. The discussion between the two men escalated and he claimant was clearly not happy with the reprimand and criticism.  

The GM had to invite the claimant to attend a meeting the next day so that he could discuss the behaviour and reaction to the reprimand. The GM had departed the hotel and, in his absence, the claimant said to two of his colleagues, in two separate conversations about 24 hours apart, that he would hit the GM.

There can be no doubt that the claimant had been hugely irked by the GM’s treatment of him and his outbursts to his two colleagues were taken very seriously by them, such that they ultimately warned the GM of the claimants threat to hit him. The GM could not ignore the threats made and there was an inevitability to this matter having to be the subject matter of an investigation.    

On balance, the investigation and disciplinary were conducted fairly and appropriately although it would have been preferable that all avenues of potential representation had been explored as the claimant, faced as he was with an allegation of gross misconduct, may have benefited in someone to steer him through the process. The Tribunal found the claimant to be a reasonable and honest witness who deeply regretted his action and who was under unusual outside pressure at the time of the incident.    

Ultimately the Tribunal had only to ask itself the question of whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the employer to terminate the employee’s employment summarily for the act of speaking threats of violence, which caused alarm to third parties who believed his intentions to be true.

On balance the Tribunal finds that the claimant’s acts were indefensible and gave cause to the only course of action open to the employer. The claimant as senior manager had acted in such a way that there was a definite breach of trust.

The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 fails.      

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)