An inspector at a National Car Test centre was fairly dismissed after it was discovered that he had tested his own car three times, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has ruled.
Andrew Barron had his contract terminated in October 2013 after he tested his own car at a Mullingar test centre on the same day it failed for having a faulty rear bulb.
In the unfair dismissal action, Mr Barron was seeking to have his job reinstated.
Mr Barron worked as an NCT car tester for almost 15 years and after his car failed a test at lunchtime on February 6th, 2013, the EAT heard Mr Barron replaced the bulb and returned to the centre that evening to test and pass his own vehicle.
Elaine Bird, HR manager at Applus Car Testing Service Ltd, trading as the NCT, told the tribunal employees are not permitted to test their own vehicles or the vehicles of family members or friends.
At an internal investigatory meeting on October 3rd, 2013, Mr Barron claimed the offence was a once-off and that he had not passed his own vehicle before.
At the October 3rd meeting, Mr Barron claimed: “I did it without thinking, on no account did I think of the code of ethics.”
He told management: “I apologise to you and the company. My job is my livelihood. Do anything else, but don’t take my job.”
However, an internal investigation by the NCT firm carried out by regional manager Jimmy McHolmes found Mr Barron had passed his own vehicles on two previous occasions - in May 2009 and in August 2011.
A second meeting was held on October 11th, 2013 and the EAT report records Mr Barron admitted he was the owner of the vehicles concerned, but offered no explanation when the allegations were put to him.
A second disciplinary meeting was held on October 14th where the decision was taken to sack Mr Barron.
No other sanction was considered by Mr McHolmes. “The key part of our business is the integrity and trust we give to the inspectors. We’re not standing over their shoulder and watching what they do. We explain to them the code of ethics and what they can’t do,” Mr Holmes said. “It’s been hammered in for years and years, that of all the things you can’t stand over, because of the contract we have from the Road Safety Authority (RSA) and the audits by the AA and PricewaterhouseCoopers, this is just not acceptable.”
Mr Barron appealed internally against his dismissal, arguing the sanction was too severe. The dismissal was upheld as his breaches were considered “very serious and a fundamental breach of trust” by the firm.
The EAT hearing was held over two days in Dublin and the EAT report records that Mr Barron was given an opportunity to give his evidence “but declined to do so on the grounds that it was too stressful”.
In dismissing the claim, the EAT stated that Applus “has discharged the burden of proof and finds that in all the circumstances the dismissal was fair”.
