Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Process Technician

A Medical Devices Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00012937-001

03/08/2017

The Complainant felt his dismissal for taking company property for his own use was unfair.

The allegation of theft is denied and is unfair.

The categorisation of the “safety issue” as extremely unsafe and that the Complainant agreed with that assessment is false.

Using the Complainants alleged “demeanour” at the hearing for grounds for dismissal is an allegation without substance and unfair.

The penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, especially given the Complainants service and track record. His case was treated on a group basis and not as an individual situation.

The Complainant was restricted to representation rights to a “work colleague”.

The Complainant took up employment in August 2017 in his home country.

The Complainant was seen on a security camera entering a restricted cage containing computer equipment which is the property of the Respondent and taking a computer for his own personal use without authorisation of any member of management.

The Complainant entered the cage containing the equipment using a movable trolley which was an act of serious health and safety concern to the Respondent and put the Complainant at risk of serious injury.

The Complainant was found to have conducted two acts of gross misconduct following and extensive investigation and separate disciplinary process.

The Complainant was given the right of representation.

The Complainant was given the right to appeal his dismissal which he did and the appeal confirmed the original decision to dismiss the Complainant.

The Complainant is required to certify sensitive medical products for customer use on his own validation. The Respondent has no confidence now in the Complainants trustworthiness to conduct and certify the Company products.

The bond of trust is irrevocably broken with the Complainant arising out of the incident where he took illegal possession of company property.

Despite all the extensive evidence in this case the issues can be simplified down to the following;

The Complainant entered a restricted area for the storage of company computers and took a computer from that area for his own personal use and benefit. He did not have permission to take the computer, did not have permission to enter the area and did so without the knowledge of his Supervisor on a quite Bank Holiday weekend and was unaware that the area was being monitored by a security camera.   He also committed a serious and dangerous act of climbing over and into a high fenced area using a movable object to support him that could have caused serious harm to him.

The Respondent operates their operation on a high degree of trust and employee self-management of the quality of their product, a medical device. The Complainant was well aware of this trust and through his actions breached that trust with the Respondent and the bond of trust is obviously seriously eroded between the Respondent and the Complainant because of his actions.

I find that the Respondent had substantial grounds for dismissing the Complainant due to his actions. The Complainant had the benefit of legal advice throughout the process of investigation and the disciplinary process. He did not seek to have any representation at these processes. In effect the Complainant would not have admitted the taking of the goods in the deliberate and planned way he did unless he had been seen by the security cameras. The claim for unfair dismissal is not well founded based on the above summary grounds for dismissal involving the unauthorised taking of company goods for personal use, a serious breach of safety and the bond of trust being irrevocably broken between the parties the claim fails accordingly.

Unfair Dismissal.