The Labour Court Recommends €90,000 Compensation In Unfair Dismissal Claim Against Park Hotel

park hotel unfair dismissal

I have written a number of blog posts about probation and the options open to an employee who has been dismissed whilst on probation.

The general position is that you cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal under the unfair dismissal acts for section 2(1) Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 sets out a number of categories of employees who are excluded from the protection of the act as follows:

2.—(1) This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

(a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him and whose dismissal does not result wholly or mainly from the matters referred to in section 6 (2) (f) of this Act,

You will note that the act does not apply to employees with less than 12 months’ continuous service. Accordingly if you are fired with less than 12 months’ service you can almost alwasy forget about the unfair dismissals act, 1977.

Recently, however, a case was brought by a former manager of the Park Hotel in Kenmare to the Labour Court. You may have heard of this hotel as it is owned and run by the high profile Brennan brothers who present that television programme where they go around telling other small business owners how to develop their small hotels or bed and breakfast business.

In this case, however, the general manager of the Park Hotel was employed on a 36 month contract and was dismissed during the probationary period without fair procedures.

Specifically the man was not told of any performance issues, no warning was given that his job may be at risk, no opportunity for representation was afforded to him, he was not given any reasons for the dismissal, and he was not given a right to reply.

The hotel relied on the contract of employment which clearly stated that either party terminate the contract by giving written notice.

How can the employee bring this claim to the Labour Court if the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 excludes employees who have less than 12 months continuous service?

Labour Court and Industrial Relations Acts

The employee can bring a claim for unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. This is precisely what happened in this case involving Francis Brennan’s Park Hotel and the Labour Court recognised that employer was entitled to dismiss the employee during the probationary period.

The Labour Court found, however, that the employee is still entitled to fair procedures and natural justice and in this case found that this did not occur.

Accordingly, the Labour Court recommended that the employer pay €90,000 in compensation for the unfair dismissal. Note that this is a ‘recommendation’ and is not legally enforceable.

Why would an employee go through this procedure and perhaps incur legal costs if he only ended up with an unenforceable recommendation which the employer can ignore?

Only the employee can answer that question but he may have hoped that the publicity surrounding the case may have persuaded the employer to settle his claim to avoid reputational damage to the hotel.

He may also have hoped that the employer would accept the moral or persuasive authority of the Labour Court’s recommendation and pay out.

Or he may have taken the case on a point of principle and to restore his good name and professional reputation if he felt that they were damaged as a result of the termination.

Conclusion

If you are an employer you may or may not, depending on your business, be concerned about reputational damage or the likelihood of industrial relations action on foot of a Labour Court recommendation which you may intend ignoring.

If you are concerned then you should ensure fair procedures and natural justice in the termination of any employee’s employment, even those on probation.

If you are an employee with less than 12 months service you may consider going this ‘industrial relations act’ route to the Labour Court; but you may end up with an unenforceable recommendation.

Read the full decision of this case here.

Unfair Dismissal and Discriminatory Dismissal Are Parallel Claims-You Must Choose One or the Other

discriminatory dismissal

Did you know that you cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal at the same time?

They are considered to be parallel complaints and you will have to choose one or the other.

Let me clarify: section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1988 states

77.— F117 [ (1) A person who claims —

( a ) to have been discriminated against or subjected to victimisation,

( b ) to have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation,

( c ) not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term, or

( d ) not to be receiving a benefit under an equality clause,

in contravention of this Act may, subject to subsections (3) to (9) , seek redress by referring the case to the F118 [ Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission ] . ]

Thus, you are claiming that you have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation.

You can also bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals act, 1977 but you will have to choose which of these claims you will ultimately pursue.

Why? Because Section 101(4)(a) of the Employment Equality act, 1998 states:

(4A) (a) Where an employee refers —

(i) a case or claim under section 77 , and

(ii) a claim for redress under the Act of 1977,

to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission in respect of a dismissal, then, from the relevant date, the case or claim referred to in subparagraph (i) shall, in so far only as it relates to such dismissal, be deemed to have been withdrawn unless, before the relevant date, the employee withdraws the claim under the Act of 1977.

(b) In this subsection —

‘ Act of 1977 ’ means the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 ;

‘ dismissal ’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 1977;

‘ relevant date ’ means such date as may be prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. ]

This means that the discrimination based claim under the Employment Equality act, 1988 will be deemed to be withdrawn unless, 41 days after notification from the WRC, you withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals act, 1977.

Then, if you withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 your discrimination based claim under the Equality Act 1988 will go ahead.

If you don’t respond to the letter you receive from the WRC your claim under the Equality Act, 1988 will be deemed to be withdrawn and your unfair dismissal claim will be dealt with.

Section 101A of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 also prohibits parallel claims as follows:

101A. — Where the conduct of an employer constitutes both a contravention of Part III or IV and a contravention of either the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 or the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 , relief may not be granted to the employee concerned in respect of the conduct under both this Act and either of the said Acts.

Takeaway

If you bring claims to the Workplace Relations Commission sometimes your case will be straightforward, but sometimes you can easily fall into a technical or legal roadblock that may give you a nasty surprise.

You should always seek legal advice before you bring any claim as it is vital that you choose the correct cause of action. This cannot be remedied later on and I have seen some very silly, basic mistakes made by workers who ultimately make some simple but fatal mistakes and end up with nothing but heartache and disappointment.

Manager Exploits Staff for Sex and Wins Case for Unfair Dismissal

sexual harassment

Did you ever read Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens?

Dickens introduced a great number of unforgettable characters to the world in this novel about the exploitation of orphan children by ‘the Jew’, Fagin to engage in criminality and picking pockets on the streets of London in the 1830s.

In Oliver Twist you had Oliver Twist himself (“please sir, can I have some more?”), John (aka Jack) Dawkins (‘the Artful Dodger’), Nancy, the good hearted lover/prostitute of the evil Bill Sikes, and a lad called Charlie Bates.

Charlie Bates spent a lot of his time on the floor laughing uproariously at the antics of the gang and exclaiming “What a game!” in reference to the criminality and picking of pockets in which the orphaned children were forced to engage.

I thought of Charlie Bates and his stock phrase “what a game!” when I read of a recent decision of the WRC in a case involving a male manager of a store in a restaurant chain who admitted to sexually harassing female staff under his management.

To cut to the chase he offered accomodation to female staff in return for sex.

The employer, on discovering this and after engaging the services of a HR person to carry out an investigation, summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct on the grounds of repeated sexual harassment in the workplace.

The dismissed manager brought a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) for unfair dismissal.

And guess what?

He won on the grounds of the absence of fair procedures (“procedures hopelessly flawed”), the WRC Adjudicator having found that his conduct amounted to sexual harassment and the dismissal was substantially fair.

He was awarded €6,500.

As Charlie Bates might have said, “What a game!”

Lack of fair procedures

The grounds for finding that the procedures were “hopelessly flawed” included

  • The company ignored the employee’s direct evidence and relied on hearsay evidence
  • The employer failed to provide witness statements to the manager
  • The employer failed to advise him of the seriousness of the situation and the potential for dismissal
  • The employer failed to allow the manager defend himself or have representation
  • The employer failed to allow him to cross examine his accusers or challenge witness statements
  • The employer did not give him the specifics of the sexual harassment allegations against him.

However, it is reported that the company engaged the services of an external HR advisor to carry out an investigation and the manager “confirmed to the investigator that he offered accommodation to employees in order to have sex with them”.

Moreover, the manager had been involved in a relationship with one of the employees (who broke it off when she discovered he was married) and the report found he “was accused of unwelcome advances and offers of going to the cinema, restaurants or visits to the park. There were accusations of non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature including leering and making sexually suggestive gestures”.

Lessons to be learned

It’s difficult to understand, having read the facts and report of this case, what circumstances will give rise to a safe summary dismissal from an employer’s perspective. Therefore the safest bet appears to be to always afford fair procedures and natural justice no matter what the circumstances.

At the very least ensure the allegations are put to the employee in sufficient details and he has a chance to explain his version of events and side of the story.

This way might ensure you are not indulging in a Charlie Bates’ reaction of rolling around on the floor saying “What a game!” after reading about, or being involved in, an unfair dismissal.

You can read the full case here.

Reinstatement of Dismissed Employee-A Warning for Employers

unfair dismissal-1

Are you an employer?

If you have dismissed an employee you are almost certainly aware that a successful claim against you by your former employee can lead to an award of compensation of up to 2 years’ salary.

But did you know that there are 2 other remedies that can be awarded if the employee’s claim succeeds?

Yes, the Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator, in an unfair dismissal hearing, can also order that the employee be reinstated or reengaged. This can be the worst possible outcome for some employers.

It is not a frequent outcome to an unfair dismissal claim and more often than not the employee will only tick the box on the WRC claim form seeking compensation. If this is the case then the adjudicator has no decision to make once he decides the employee has been unfairly dismissed.

But sometimes an employee will seek reinstatement to their old position. He may do this for tactical reasons-for example, it may encourage the employer to attempt to settle the claim before it goes to a hearing at WRC for fear of losing.

On other occasions, however, by virtue of the nature of the industry or specialised nature of the job, the employment prospects for the dismissed employee may be poor. If this is the case the employee may be perfectly happy to resume his old job, or an alternative position in the same organisation, which can be an equally bad result for the employer, who would be happy to never see the employee again.

This can cause a major headache for the employer who will doubtless argue that the relationship between employer and employee has broken down and there is a lack of trust and confidence between the parties and they should not be forced into resuming the old relationship.

This is a widely used and accepted argument. But it’s not always successful.

A Banker v A Bank Adj ADJ-00001266

The WRC adjudicator, on 28th March, 2018, made an order for re-instatement in this case involving a banker versus his former employer, a bank. The banker, a trader, was dismissed for gross misconduct and brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

Without going into all the details (there is a link below for full details of the decision) the decision of the adjudicator, Mr. Kevin Baneham, was that the unfair dismissal claim was to succeed due to the imperfections and flaws in the bank’s disciplinary procedure which led to the dismissal. The next step to be decided was the appropriate redress for the employee.

The redress sought by the banker, once he succeeded in his claim, was re-instatement. The adjudicator agreed that re-instatement and re-engagement were possible awards as the banker was a popular employee whose performance appraisals were good and was a good team player.

Mutual trust and confidence/disharmony

The bank, however, argued that re-instatement was not appropriate as it could lead to a poor relationship between the parties in the future, there would inevitably be disharmony, and the relationship of mutual trust and confidence between the parties was shattered. The adjudicator did not agree.

The adjudicator had regard for the fact that the banker operated in a strictly regulated environment and industry and a dismissal would possibly be fatal to obtaining alternative employment in such an industry, given the relatively limited options. For this reason the adjudicator ordered that the employee be re-instated as it was ‘just and equitable in this case’.

For the reasons provided in this report, I find that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded and, pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, I order the re-instatement by the respondent of the complainant in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal.

You can read the full decision in this case here: ADJ-00001266

Lessons for employers and employees

If you are an employer ensure you or your advisor checks the WRC complaint form to see if the redress sought by the employee includes re-instatement or re-engagement.

If you are an employee you may consider nominating those options as redress you are seeking as it may put some pressure on your former employer to settle the case before it goes to hearing, for fear you will win and an order for re-instatement is made.

2 Years’ Salary Awarded to Van Driver in Unfair Dismissal Case

the labour court

The maximum amount that can be awarded in an unfair dismissal case is 2 years’ remuneration (section 7, Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977).

I had never seen it awarded until this case, DHL Limited and Michael Coughlan, in which Mr. Coughlan was awarded €72,042.88 by way of compensation.

On the 28th July, 2017 the Labour Court handed down its decision in an appeal by the employer of the previous WRC adjudicator decision in the employee’s favour.

Background

The background to this case is an WRC adjudicator decision of 30th January, 2017 to decide that the employee should be reinstated in his job as a DHL driver.

Mr. Coughlan was employed as a van driver for 11 years until his summary dismissal in November, 2015.

Mr. Coughlan brought a claim for unfair dismissal to the WRC and the Adjudicator decided that the sanction imposed on Mr. Coughlan for an accident involving his vehicle was, “disproportionate having regard to all the circumstances.” She ordered reinstatement from September, 2016, when the WRC hearing was held.

Mr. Coughlan had previously accumulated written warnings, with a duration of 12 months each, for a couple of incidents involving his driving, but had no such incidents for 2 years prior to the incident in 19th October, 2015 which led to his dismissal. Mr. Coughlan, at the investigation meeting, admitted that he had misjudged the space available to him while passing another vehicle at the Cork Depot of the employer, and apologised. The damage to the van cost €2,500 to repair.

Following the disciplinary hearing the employer decided to dismiss Mr. Coughlan for gross misconduct involving the incident and damaging of company property. However, the employer’s letter advising him of his summary dismissal made reference to his previous driving problems, even though the last warning he had was expired for some time.

The employer, in its response to Mr. Coughlan’s appeal, relied on his previous record of driving incidents and written warnings, and gave evidence that DHL could not rely on the employee to drive the company vehicles safely and no other option, for example, redeployment, was open to the employer on this occasion.

The head of operations of the employer gave evidence that he felt it appropriate to take the previous driving record of Mr. Coughlan into account when hearing his appeal to the dismissal, notwithstanding that the previous warnings had expired.

Labour Court Findings

The Labour Court found that Mr. Coughlan was confronted with multiple accounts of misconduct at the disciplinary hearing, even though there was no reference to multiple allegations in the letter inviting him to the hearing. The letter only referred to his failure to protect and safeguard company property (the van).

The Labour Court also found that the employer’s decision to dismiss was motivated, partly, by what it saw as its duty of care to the public, and safety grounds; however, this was completely different from the subject matter contained in the letter inviting Mr. Coughlan to the disciplinary hearing as the letter stated he was being invited to meet the allegation of failure to protect and safeguard company property’.

The Labour Court also found that the grounds for summary dismissal without notice are very restricted, as can be seen from established jurisprudence in relation to dismissal, and a reading of Section 8 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, which requires very bad behaviour of such a kind that no reasonable employer could be expected to tolerate the continuance of the relationship for a minute longer.

As the allegation against Mr. Coughlan was that he failed to protect and safeguard company property it was held that this could not constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, that is, without notice.

The Labour Court also found that the employer did not give due consideration to alternative sanctions short of dismissal, nor did it allow him to offer to pay for the damage to the vehicle.

Furthermore it found that the employer gave too much weight to the previous incidents concerning Mr. Coughlan’s driving, and noted that his previous written warnings had expired by the time of this incident.

The Labour Court, for the reasons set out above, decided Mr. Coughlan was unfairly dismissed.

It took into account Mr. Coughlan’s attempts to mitigate his loss by seeking new employment: He told the Court that in the period since October 2015 he has applied for some 23 or 24 jobs without success. He applied for various roles including that of courier, driver, general operative, cleaner and store person. The Respondent was called to a small number of interviews by named employers but no job offer ensued from any of them.

The Labour Court awarded him €72,042.88 by way of compensation, being the equivalent of 104 weeks’ remuneration, which it viewed was the employee’s financial loss to date attributable to the dismissal.

You can read the full case here.