EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NO.
Gabor Baranya, UD852/2015
-claimant MN412/2015
against
Rosderra Irish Meats Group
-respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms K. T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Mr. J. Browne
Ms S. Kelly
heard this claim at Horse & Jockey on 11th October 2016
Representation:
Claimant: No representation listed
Respondent: Mr. R. Lawless, Ibec, Ross House, Victoria Place, Galway
The determination of the Tribunal is as follows:-
The claimant’s case was that he was dismissed because he had initiated a personal injuries action against the respondent. The respondent’s case was that he was dismissed for repeated and serious breaches of quality procedures.
Summary of Evidence
The respondent manufactures pork products. It employs 350 workers in its Roscrea plant where the claimant worked initially between March 2001 and August 2002 and later from January 2004 until his dismissal on 2 February 2015. The industry is highly regulated and is regularly audited, sometimes unannounced, by its customers. If two non-compliances are discovered the respondent loses the customer. Ten veterinary surgeons from the Department of Agriculture are on site every day. The employees attend induction training on quality, hygiene and health and safety. Breaching quality procedures can have serious consequences for the consumer and the company.
On 17 July 2013, following a meeting with the respondent, at which the claimant was accompanied by his shop steward, he was issued with a written warning for wearing neck jewellery in the course of his work on 2 July, in breach of company quality rules. The warning was not disputed or appealed.
Less than two months later, on 4 September 2013, during a random check on 280 lockers, to ensure compliance with hygiene rules and procedures, prohibited items (five white coats) were found in the claimant’s locker in breach of mandatory policy/procedures. Members of the Quality Department accompanied by a trade union member carried out the checks. Employees’ names are not on the lockers. On 6 September 2013 following a meeting, at which the claimant was represented by his shop steward, he was issued with a final written warning under company quality rules and procedures. The claimant was warned that any further similar breach would result in his dismissal.
On 15 July 2014 following a meeting where he was represented by his shop steward the claimant was issued with a final written warning for wearing jewellery in the course of his work in the production area, in breach of quality rules and procedures. While the company considered dismissing the claimant his shop steward pleaded his case and because of the claimant’s long service the respondent agreed to provide him with one final opportunity to improve.
Following disciplinary meetings on 30 January 2015 and 2 February 2015 the claimant was dismissed for storing prohibited items (a meat hook, a knife holder, baby powder and moisturising cream) in his locker on 30 January 2015 in breach of company quality procedures. By letter of 6 February 2015 HRM confirmed the dismissal. The claimant appealed the dismissal.
The claimant’s appeal was heard by the Group HR Manager ((GHRM) on 18 March 2015. Three members of the claimant’s trade union (a senior official and two shop stewards) were in attendance with the claimant. Noting that the purpose of disciplinary sanctions is to encourage employees to adhere to defined rules and that despite three prior warnings the claimant again breached quality procedures in January 2015, GHRM upheld the dismissal.
Each of the four letters of sanction contained the following paragraph:
“As you are aware it is the strict duty of all employees to comply with the Company policy in regard to quality procedures. Our Quality Assurance Scheme is a programme whereby food is produced to a strict set of quality standards/(rules) and we must ensure at all times that production either directly or indirectly is in accordance with those standards. These standards allow us primarily to ensure our customer and Statutory requirements are met and the consequences of the company not meeting these standards is critical to the consumer and also the future of this company.”
The production manager (PM) believed that the claimant understood the warnings but had no regard for the company’s hygiene rules. He was represented at all the meetings by a shop steward. He was satisfied that the claimant understood the final written warnings. An interpreter had been present at the meetings. PM confirmed that the claimant had initiated a personal injury claim against the respondent but he was not dismissed because of it. The respondent first became aware that the claimant was taking a personal injury action against it on receipt of the claimant’s solicitor’s letter of 13 February 2014.
The claimant’s position was that he was happy to work for the respondent and had always tried to give one hundred percent to his work. He helped his co-workers, supervisors and managers. He was never late for work or under the influence of alcohol at work. He had hardly any problems until 2013 except warnings for failure to wear steel gloves in the course of his work in February and March 2011 when he had been issued respectively with a verbal and written warning. He explained that he stopped working and removed his steel glove just before the bell was to sound. In 2010 he was put on a different job which he found very difficult and it affected his shoulder. He asked a number of his superiors for a transfer to another department but all his requests were ignored.
The claimant explained that he wore the necklace/jewellery under his work coat and if it fell off it would just fall to the floor under his coat. He did not know why the talcum powder was considered dangerous. He neither caused nor intended to cause any damage to the company. Normally a supervisor would tell them clear their lockers the day before an audit was to take place but this had not happened in early September 2013 or January 2015. He did not understand the final written warning and did not realise that he could be dismissed. In his last two years with the respondent he felt he was not welcome there because of his personal injury action. A proper interpreter had not been present at the meetings. The claimant company breaches its own hygiene rules. He had not received adequate training; he had only received around five hours training. The claimant's brother gave evidence that many workers had white coats in their lockers and that he only received training in the first few days of his fifteen years with the respondent. He was dismissed by the respondent some months subsequent to his brother’s dismissal.
There was a dispute as to whether GHRM wanted the claimant to drop the personal injury action and return to work.
Determination
The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant was not dismissed because of his personal injury claim. The respondent first received notice of that claim in or around 13 March 2014 when the chain of disciplinary warnings was already in train and two of the three warnings had been issued to the claimant.
While the initial warning issued to the claimant was a stage 2 warning the Tribunal notes that an additional final written warning was issued to the claimant at the other end of the process on 15 July 2014. The claimant was afforded three opportunities to comply with the respondent’s quality procedures before the decision to dismiss him was taken. The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant had been issued with sufficient warnings.
The respondent is not only entitled to but must run its production in a proper, safe and hygienic manner both for the safety of the consumer and the employees themselves. The claimant was dismissed for persistently ignoring health and safety rules and quality procedures.
The claimant was represented by a shop steward at each of the four disciplinary meetings. The Tribunal cannot accept that he was not aware of the seriousness of his situation or that his job was at risk.
For the reasons outlined the Tribunal finds that the dismissal was fair and the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
The claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 succeeds and the Tribunal awards the claimant €2,022.00 under those Acts.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)