Carey v Docket and Form International Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 April 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 4 JIEC 0801
• Date: 08 April 2005
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Carey v Docket and Form International Ltd.

Abstract:

EAT - Employment law - Unfair Dismissal - Breach of company policy - Whether respondent wished to make example of claimant - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:	CASE NO.
Gerard Carey, 57 Brandon Road, Drimnagh,, Dublin 12	UD302/2004, MN255/2004

Against

Docket & Form International Limited, 16 Parkmore Industrial Estate, Longmile Road, Dublin 12 under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr. P. O'Leary B L
Members:	Mr W. Power
	Ms. A. Moore

heard this claim at Dublin on 26th November 2004 and 22nd March 2005

Facts The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in 1984 and at the time of his termination had been promoted to a supervisory position. The claimant had approached the person in charge of the warehouse and asked if he could have any scrap/ waste papers. He was accused of attempting to steal the paper and ultimately dismissed. The respondent contended that the company policy was that all employees had to receive permission to take anything from the premises and that the claimant's unauthorised removal of the paper had been a serious breach of trust.

Held by the Tribunal in awarding the claimant Eur20,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001and Eur7,000 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 that while the claimant contributed somewhat to his dismissal, the dismissal was unfair. The respondent wished to make an example of the claimant and this was unfair. The respondent overreacted to the claimant's attempted removal of the paper.

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Respondent's Case:

2 The Tribunal heard evidence from the managing director of the respondent company. The witness gave evidence as to the general nature of the company. The witness explained that the company is a printing company that produces documents that requires a high level of security. The documents are kept in a security vault during the nighttime and there were CCTV cameras in the company. The company produced the templates for the documents and “Film” was destroyed and waste was shredded. The witness described the various and rigorous security measures that the company had in place. The company was twenty-eight years in existence and it was important that their customers had trust in the company.

3 The witness told the Tribunal that if he was asked by employees for “briquettes” of waste they could have it providing he knew that the waste was secure. The witness knew the claimant for twenty years. The claimant was the longest serving employee and the claimant “grew-up” in the company.

4 The witness told the Tribunal that be examined video evidence to ascertain the waste had been taken from the premises. He took into account the claimant's service with the company.

5 An employee of the company outlined his involvement in this case. The witness was locking up the respondent's premises on 6 January 2004 when he noticed bags placed at the outside of the warehouse. A closer look revealed that these bags contained large quantities of paper. When he took the bags inside the witness contacted the factory manager and informed him of this incident In turn the managing director was told of this. The witness later confirmed to that manager that no...