Dooley v Great Southern Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice McCracken
• Judgment Date: 27 July 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IEHC 115
• Docket Number: No. 5129 P/2001
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 July 2001

[2001] IEHC 115

THE HIGH COURT

Mr. McCracken

No. 5129 P/2001

DOOLEY v. GREAT SOUTHERN HOTELS LTD

BETWEEN

PATRICK DOOLEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

GREAT SOUTHERN HOTELS LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

PEPPER V WEBB 1969 2 AER 216

BREWSTER V BURKE UNREP HAMILTON 8.2.1978 1978/1/

GLOVER V BLN LTD 1973 IR 388

MOONEY V AN POST 1998 ELR 238

WALSH V DUBLIN HEALTH BOARD 98 ILTR 82

Synopsis

EMPLOYMENT

Dismissal

Fair procedures - Misconduct - Whether plaintiff's dismissal justified - Whether plaintiff entitled to damages - Whether fair procedures followed - Whether adequate notice given (2001/5129P - McCracken J - 27/7/01) [2001] ELR 340

Dooley v Great Southern Hotels Ltd

The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as a hotel manager and was dismissed followed an incident whereby he had allegedly failed to follow an express instruction by his superiors. The plaintiff instituted proceedings claiming that fair procedures had not been followed. Mr. Justice McCracken was satisfied that the plaintiff had been guilty of misconduct. However the plaintiff had not been given the requisite six months notice and a total of £31,752 would be awarded.

JUDGMENT of

Mr. Justice McCracken

1 delivered the 27th day of July, 2001.

2 The Plaintiff is the holder of a Diploma in Hotel Management and has been employed in the hotel industry for most of his working life. In February 1990 he was offered the position of General Manager of Shannon International Hotel, which at the time was owned by Aer Rianta and he was then employed by them under the terms of a written contract dated 8th February, 1990. I will deal with the specific terms of the contract below.

3 Not long afterwards, the hotel changed hands and became part of the Great Southern Group owned by the Defendant, and its name was changed to "Great Southern". It became one of a group of hotels owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff's position became part of the Defendant's management structure.

4 While the Plaintiff's appointment was to the Shannon Hotel, he was in fact asked to and agreed to move to the position of General Manager of the Great Southern Tore Hotel in Killarney where he remained for several years. In 1997 he resumed his position as General Manager of the Great Southern Shannon, again under the terms of his original contract.

5 The administrative structure of the Defendant at the relevant time was that Mr. Eamon McKeon was Chief Executive with overall responsibility for all the hotels with several managers reporting to him, each of whom was responsible for their particular aspect of management for all hotels in the group. In particular, Mary McKeon was Group Operations Manager and Catherine Cronin was Sales Manager. As General Manager of the Shannon Hotel, the Plaintiffs immediate superior in relation to the operation of the hotel was Mary McKeon.

6 These proceedings arise out of the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendant as General Manager of the Hotel, which took place by letter dated 24th February, 2001.

THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTRACT.

7 The contract was contained in a letter dated 8th February, 1990 from the Assistant Chief Executive of Aer Rianta, the Plaintiff's employment to commence on 19th March, 1990. It contained most of the normal provisions of such as contract, including a specific provision in relation to a bonus. The relevant clause for the purpose of these proceedings is headed "Notice of Termination of Employment", which reads:-

"It is intended that this employment should extend up to normal retiring date i.e., age 65 in present circumstances. If however, either party should wish, for good and sufficient reason, to terminate the employment, then the applicable period of notice would be six months"

8 This clause is notable for several reasons. Firstly, the contract was not for any fixed period, and the notice provision refers to an intention to extend the employment up to 65 years of age, but does not state in so many words that it is an appointment for that length of time. Secondly, it permits termination of the contract by six months notice for good and sufficient reason, without in any way indicating what is meant by that phrase. Thirdly, nowhere in either the agreement in general nor in the termination provision in particular does in contain any disciplinary provisions or any references to misconduct.

EMPLOYMENT OF DENISE HICKEY.

9 It is quite clear that commercially the hotel had not prospered since the Plaintiffs return in 1997. There is no doubt that at least part of the reason for this was the lack of any efficient sales personnel attached specifically to this hotel. There had been several appointments to that position, but the appointments had proved short lived, and there had been several periods in which there was no Sales Assistant. Ultimately in March 2000 Ms. Denise Hickey was appointed by the Plaintiff, with the approval of his superiors, to this position at an annual salary of £15,000. In the second half of the year 2000, probably due to a considerable extent to Ms. Hickey's efforts, the business of the hotel increased considerably. Unfortunately, and I am quite satisfied on this point on the evidence of Ms. Hickey herself, she was working under some considerable difficulties. She was not allocated an office of her own, which was the matter of a number of complaints by her, and she was asked to undertake some secretarial and administrative duties which not only were not part of her job, but also took away from the time available to her for sales. I am also satisfied that, while the Plaintiff may not have fully realised it, Ms. Hickey was not comfortable working with the Plaintiff and felt intimidated by him. The outcome of all of this was on 12th January, 2001 she submitted her resignation with writing.

EVENTS 12TH JANUARY TO 15TH JANUARY, 2001.

10 The events of this weekend are of vital importance to the case, and there has been some conflict of evidence as to what exactly took place. I have listened Carefully to all the witnesses concerned, and I think that on the balance of probabilities the following is an account of the events of those days.

11 On the afternoon of 12th January, Ms. Hickey told the Plaintiff that she was resigning and handed him her letter of resignation. He made very little comment except to say he was sorry to hear it, and did not ask for the reason for her resignation. Later that evening Mary McKeon called to the hotel and was told by the Plaintiff that Ms Hickey had given her notice. By this time, her resignation was common knowledge in the hotel, and it appears to have been generally rumoured that she had left for a job which was paying double her then salary. A discussion then took place about the value of Ms. Hickey to the hotel and Mary McKeon's evidence is that she gave the Plaintiff an instruction to talk to Ms. Hickey and to try and persuade her to stay. The Plaintiff's account is that he suggested that he should contact Ms. Hickey, and that no instruction as such was given to him. Indeed, his evidence was that the hotel did not operate by a regime of formal instructions, but rather by consensus. I am satisfied that, whoever may have initiated the suggestion, there was not only an agreement between the Plaintiff and Ms. McKeon that he would approach Ms. Hickey personally, but that this was the strategy to try to get her to stay which was agreed between the Plaintiff and his superior and which he undertook to his superior to put in place.

12 It is common case that the Plaintiff did not in fact talk to Ms. Hickey personally. Instead, he spoke to another employee, a Ms. Denise Glendenning, who he believed was a friend of Ms. Hickeys, and asked Ms. Glendenning to speak to Ms. Hickey to find out why she was leaving. This conversation probably took place on the Friday evening. On the following Monday, 15th January, Ms. Glendenning's evidence is that she met Ms. Hickey during the coffee break and had a cup of coffee with her and Ms. Hickey told her she had a new position with a better package of £30,000 a year and certain other benefits. Ms. Glendenning did not make any effort to persuade her to stay, nor had she been asked to, and reported back later on the Monday to the Plaintiff. Ms. Hickey says she does not recollect such a conversation ever taking place, but on balance I think it probably did in a very informal way. I certainly accept that Ms. Hickey was not told that any enquiries were being made of her on behalf of the Plaintiff.

13 Later on the Monday Mary McKeon telephoned the Plaintiff to find out what had happened. I am quite satisfied on the evidence that the Plaintiff told her that he had talked to Ms. Hickey and further told her that Ms. Hickey was not going to stay.

MEMORANDUM OF 26TH JANUARY, 2001.

14 On 26th January Mary McKeon sent a four page memorandum to the Plaintiff concerning a number of issues which she said were causing her and Eamon McKeon concern and needed to be discussed with the Plaintiff. The issues referred to can briefly be summarised as follows:-

15 a a. There had been several meetings during the previous year in which had been discussed the Plaintiff's poor performance and the failure of the Plaintiff to take responsibility for the results.

16 b b. The importance of Ms. Hickey in improving the results of the hotel.

17 c c. The events of 12th to 15th January.

18 d d. The Discovery by Mary McKeon that the Plaintiff had not spoken to Ms. Hickey.

19 e e. An earlier complaint in relation to a customer, namely Mr. McDonald, where it was alleged that the Plaintiff had not apologised as instructed.

20 f f. The hygiene audit for December 2000 which gave a very low rating.

21 The Plaintiff was requested to attend a meeting at the Great Southern Hotel in Dublin Airport on 5th February to discuss these matters. In the course of the letter it was stated that following a...