An Employment Appeals Tribunal has turned down a claim for compensation from a Co Sligo man dismissed after he tried to return to his job when he was released from prison having been sentenced to eight years.
The tribunal found that Eircom had not dismissed Gerard Gallagher, Cloonaghlawn, Ballinfull, but rather that his contract had been "frustrated" in that his employment was terminated by operation of law when he received the sentence in 1998.
Eircom told the tribunal that Mr Gallagher had been on unauthorised absence from duty from August 5th, 1998, and that on February 29th, 2004, it was decided to dismiss him with effect from March 1st, 2004.
Mr Gallagher's solicitor told the tribunal that an Eircom representative visited him in jail and led him to believe that his job was there for him. The solicitor said Mr Gallagher had been a sterling employee for 17 years, had pleaded guilty in court and had paid his debt to society.
Asked why it had taken so long to dismiss him, counsel for Eircom said that while "frustration" automatically terminates employment and leaves no onus on an employer, the firm had very elaborate grievance procedures agreed with unions.
He submitted that while Eircom had gone through these procedures, Mr Gallagher's employment was automatically ended when he went to prison.
The "doctrine of frustration" operated independently of the will of the parties. Eircom's human relations personnel could not be expected to assume legal knowledge.
Whatever Mr Gallagher did with the unions for industrial relations reasons did not stop the doctrine of frustration from operating.
The tribunal found for Eircom on the legal point that Mr Gallagher's contract was ended by "operation of law" following the custodial prison sentence.