An allegedly “volatile and violent” worker said to have left colleagues “afraid for their lives” has won €2,500 in compensation after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found procedural flaws with his sacking.
Adrian Heller admitted to the WRC that he threw his helmet “towards” a colleague but insisted it did not “hit anyone”.
His colleague complained to his bosses that the helmet injured his leg and he was fearful, adding that that Mr Heller was “waving a hammer” and threatening a third worker during the incident, the tribunal was told.
Challenging his sacking for gross misconduct in a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against his former employer, Floortech Industries Ltd, Mr Heller’s trade union representative, Colleen Minehan of Siptu, argued: “A one-off incident such as throwing a helmet at a colleague could not be considered as an incident of gross misconduct.”
Ms Minehan said that when Siptu wrote to the firm looking for copies of investigation and disciplinary reports, it instead responded with “a lengthy character assassination”.
The incident happened on a Thursday before the May bank holiday in 2021 at a client site in Limerick, after a mistake with a resin mix that meant a new floor had to be taken up and re-laid by the Friday.
Mr Heller said his job was “very pressurised” and physically demanding, requiring overnight stays, late finishes and early starts, and that he had already worked until 7pm the previous two nights – but that he was left “laying floor on his own”.
He said his supervisor, identified only as Mr CC, had threatened on the Wednesday to report him to head office if he missed the deadline.
“[He] said that if I didn’t finish the job on Friday, he’s going to rat me out,” Mr Heller said.
Mr Heller said it was another worker’s fault that the resin mix was wrong, but that he was “rebuffed” by colleagues when he looked for help and was left to re-lay the floor by himself.
His position was that he “became frustrated” and “threw his helmet towards the other co-worker” – his supervisor, Mr CC – before he “walked away immediately to avoid a confrontation” and returned to work “in silence for the rest of the day”.
Eileen Hayes of Hallisey & Partners Solicitors, appearing for the company, said its management got a complaint about “aggressive, bullying, intimidating and threatening” behaviour from Mr CC.
It was the evidence of the company’s contracts manager, Declan O’Sullivan, that Mr CC said to him: “I’ll be straight with you. I’m working with him [Mr Heller] on Sunday. I don’t want to work with him. I’m afraid of what will happen on site.”
In the complaint, Mr CC said Mr Heller “had thrown his safety helmet with force” at him, “striking and injuring him on the leg”.
Mr Heller “was waving a hammer in a threatening manner while shouting at another employee and threatening him with the hammer, before throwing the hammer on the ground with force”, the complaint continued.
The company also said there had been an “incident of antisocial behaviour” by Mr Heller at a hotel in Galway where he had been put up that week, saying it was “such a disturbance that he was asked to move”, Ms Hayes added.
The company’s commercial director Michael O’Donoghue, said that Mr Heller had been given a previous warning in May 2019 after being “barred out of the hotel” where the company’s staff were staying for a job in Wicklow because he was “aggressive towards somebody”.
The company’s managing director, Anthony Lehane, said Mr Heller had given him an undertaking “not to drink when he was away for work” after the first hotel incident.
The complainant had “isolated himself within the company” and his colleagues “didn’t want to work for him”, the managing director said.
“Half the company were afraid of their lives,” Mr Lehane added.
In her decision, adjudicating officer Lefre de Burgh ruled that the sacking of Mr Heller was “substantively fair”.
“The employer found itself in a situation which was untenable and had to act urgently to address the matter,” she said – accepting the employer’s evidence that other staff made complaints and expressed fears about Mr Heller’s “aggressive, intimidating, volatile and violent behaviour at work”.
She also accepted the company’s evidence on the hotel incident and that there was “a pattern of pre-existing difficulties with respect to the complainant’s behaviour”. She said this was a “reputational” issue for the firm in view of the amount of work it did for the hotel industry.
“I also must consider whether the dismissal was procedurally fair. Having considered it carefully, I find that it was not,” she wrote.
Mr Heller got “no written complaint, no right of reply, no fair procedure [and] no representation”, Ms de Burgh said, adding that the appeal process was “a fiction” as it was offered too late.
She said the failure to set out allegations in writing and afford representation rights meant the disciplinary meeting held with Mr Heller was “an ambush”.
However, she found Mr Heller “contributed substantially to his own dismissal” and the company had been “a prudent and considered employer” in the circumstances.
She said she would award only 25 per cent of the lost earnings claimed by Mr Heller, making an order for €1,211.20, and also ordered the firm to pay him €1,360, two weeks’ notice pay.