A lounge assistant at Aer Lingus’s Gold Circle in Dublin Airport, who was suspended after a manager found a plastic bottle containing alcohol in her handbag, has lost her claim for constructive dismissal.
In the case before the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), members heard Kristina Malinovska was found with the plastic bottle containing the alcohol on January 27th, 2015.
Ms Malinovska, who was employed by OCS One Complete Solution Limited T/A Ocs Outsourced, told the tribunal she had brought the bottle to work. She said she brought it for later when she was meeting friends because it would be too late to buy drink when she finished.
However, Ms Malinovska was advised to leave the area and told she was being suspended pending an investigation. Following an investigatory meeting and a disciplinary hearing where she told her story, Ms Malinovska was told “no sanction was applicable”.
She was told not to take alcohol to work and advised that she would not be returning to the Gold Circle, but to cleaning duties in the food court.
Ms Malinovska told the EAT hearing in Dublin this made her very uncomfortable. She felt all her co-workers and friends were aware of what had happened and her reputation was damaged.
Loved her job
Ms Malinovska said that she loved her job and wanted to return to it, not to cleaning toilets and removing rubbish in the food court area.
Under cross-examination Ms Malinovska agreed her contract classed her as a cleaner and that she had signed it. She also conceded the firm could move her to another location but disputed she was offered alternatives.
An operations manager for the firm at the time told the tribunal the moving of employees to different areas was common. He said there was no ambiguity – Ms Malinovska was a cleaner.
He told the tribunal Ms Malinovska was offered relocation to the food courts, the offices behind the food court, offices in the campus outside the main area and the wheelchair area.
He said her answer was always “no”. The locations offered were where there was a demand, as required by the client, he said.
Under cross-examination he said Ms Malinovska was suspended because of the alcohol. Searches were routine and staff could be moved around as per the company’s handbook.
The EAT stated that in a claim alleging constructive dismissal there was an onus on the employee to prove that his/her dismissal was unfair.
The EAT found Ms Malinovska was afforded every opportunity to return to work, an opportunity she refused to avail of.
The tribunal stated it was satisfied Ms Malinovska’s behaviour in failing to engage in any satisfactory manner with her employer was unreasonable.
The EAT stated: “It is the unanimous decision of the tribunal that the test for constructive dismissal has not been met. Therefore, the claim fails.”
