A Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator has called it “particularly reprehensible” for a company to suggest its former employee “acquiesced” to a disciplinary hearing without a union rep after threatening him with a charge of gross misconduct if he didn’t participate.
The remarks were made by the adjudicator in a decision published on Wednesday awarding more than €6,500 to Shane Guilfoyle, a former engineer with Anglo Irish Refrigeration Co Ltd, on foot of complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
The awards package includes the maximum compensation for unfair dismissal in the absence of lost earnings, the WRC ruling that there had been “a thoroughly bad process which, in almost every aspect, failed to even approach the standards of procedural and substantive fairness required in disciplinary proceedings”.
Mr Guilfoyle’s sacking in April 2023 followed what he called “a number of debates” with his bosses the previous year about the lack of air conditioning in the work van he had been provided with as a mobile breakdown and maintenance engineer based in the Cork area, as he had concerns about “heat stress”.
He explained that he was instructed to collect a new van from the firm’s head office in November 2022, only to discover the following day that his previous work van – which had contained personal belongings and tools – was “lifted” by the firm without his knowledge.
He told the firm later that month he would not attend work due to “headaches and stress” and complained about “excessive working hours”, the tribunal heard.
On his return to work in early December 2022, Mr Guilfoyle was called to an investigation meeting where he was presented with photos of the interior of the van and a series of “job reports”.
Garret Mulroy, a service manager at Anglo Irish Refrigeration, gave evidence that the van had been in a “dirty state” with “damage [that] went well beyond ‘wear and tear’”, adding that there was also a “pattern” of substandard work on the part of Mr Guilfoyle.
However, Mr Guilfoyle told the WRC he did not recall the van being in the state shown in the photos when he last had it. He also alleged to the tribunal that one of the job reports shown to him had been “altered” by management to include “additional photos”.
“The photos added were not the same unit or even the same shop in which I had performed my duties,” Mr Guilfoyle wrote in a legal submission, terming it a “deliberate falsification”.
Mr Guilfoyle said he got no specific details of what disciplinary charges he was facing when he was directed to attend a disciplinary meeting on January 10th last year, and was denied union representation, calling this “a clear breach” of company policy and his statutory rights.
He told the tribunal in his evidence that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for complaining to his manager about his work van.
The company’s disciplinary officer, general manager Brendan Quinn, told the complainant at the disciplinary meeting: “The way this van was left showed poor housekeeping and disregard for company property.”
He gave evidence to the WRC that he was satisfied Mr Guilfoyle had “disobeyed” an instruction not to use his work van for personal purposes.
Mr Guilfoyle was notified that he was being dismissed without notice on January 25th, 2023 and had his wages docked by €1,471.57 on February 2nd for “damage to work van”, the tribunal said.
In his decision ruling the dismissal unfair, WRC adjudicator Pat Brady wrote that there was no evidence of the company’s investigation “actually reaching a finding of fact” – a “fundamental flaw” by itself which left the complainant at an “unacceptable disadvantage” at disciplinary stage.
“Add this to his complaint about having to travel a long distance to an early morning hearing, his lack of representation, and the threat that he would be charged with gross misconduct if he were not to proceed, it is possible to discern a clear flavour of the true nature of the process,” Mr Brady wrote.
Nor was the worker told that he was facing a gross misconduct charge when he was put on notice of the hearing, Mr Brady noted, adding that the alleged “performance issues” had “mysteriously evaporated” during the disciplinary process, as had the allegation of damage to the van, he noted.
He also noted that the instruction to Mr Guilfoyle not to use the van came during the “purported” investigation meeting in early December 2022 and that the worker had never previously been subject to a disciplinary process.
“While any breach of an instruction may be regarded as ‘excessive’ ... this smacks of desperation on the part of the respondent to make the conduct complained of fit the desired outcome,” Mr Brady wrote.
Addressing legal filings made on behalf of the company on the case, Mr Brady wrote: “The attempt by the respondent in its submission to characterise the complainant’s continued participation in the process as ‘acquiescence’ is particularly reprehensible.”
Noting that Mr Guilfoyle had no evidence of financial loss, having found a new job within a month of his sacking, Mr Brady awarded €4,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal, the maximum possible sum in his jurisdiction in the absence of any loss to the worker.
Mr Brady also ruled that company had acted unlawfully by docking the €1,471.57 from Mr Guilfoyle’s pay, and also awarded “three days’ pay in the amount of €150″ for unpaid annual leave.
Mr Brady rejected further claims of excessive working hours by Mr Guilfoyle, which the company had denied.
- Sign up for Business push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our Inside Business podcast is published weekly – Find the latest episode here
