Dwyer v an Post [EAT]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 September 2012
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2012] 9 JIEC 2107
• Docket Number: UD2295/2010 MN2243/2010 WT1020/2010
• Date: 21 September 2012
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. UD2295/2010 MN2243/2010 WT1020/2010

CLAIM(S) OF:

Philip Dwyer, 49 Wainsfort Park, Terenure, Dublin 6W

claimant

and

An Post, General Post Office, O'Connell Street, Dublin 1

respondent

Representation:

Claimant(s) : Ms. MP Guinness BL on first day of hearing and by Ms. Claire Bruton BL on second, third, fourth and fifth day of hearings instructed by Eversheds O'Donnell Sweeney, Solicitors, One Earlsfort Centre, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2

Respondent(s) : Mr Seamus Clarke BL instructed by Ms Freda Mahon, An Post, Solicitors Office, General Post Office, O'Connell Street, Dublin 1

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal (Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Mr D. Hayes BL

Members: Mr R. Murphy Mr. P. Woods

heard this claim at Dublin on 2nd April 2012 and 28th June 2012 and 29th June 2012 and 20 ^th September 2012 and 21 ^st September 2012

Determination

1 The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in 1985. After a protracted period of absence, which commenced in July 2006, the respondent commenced disciplinary proceedings. On foot of these proceedings, the claimant was dismissed in November 2008, That dismissal was confirmed, after an internal appeal, in August 2010.

2 The background to the claimant's absence was a number of interactions with dogs that occurred in the course of his employment. The claimant had formed the opinion that the respondent had previously taken insufficient steps to protect him from dogs. In fact, the respondent had a well-established procedure for dealing with complaints in relation to the possibility of dogs attacking its employees. In the previous cases the dogs had been reported to the Gardai and the dog warden and, in addition, service had been withdrawn from the owners of the dogs in question. It appears that the claimant was not satisfied with these steps and felt that the respondent ought to have compelled the dog warden, in each case, to "deal with the dog". It is not clear what the claimant meant by dealing with the dog or how he thought the respondent ought to have compelled the dog warden. Nonetheless, it seems that the claimant's apprehension of how past incidents had been handled coloured his perception of two incidents in July 2006.

3 The Tribunal heard much evidence in relation to previous difficulties that the claimant had had with dogs much of which was, to a large extent, of tangential relevance to the matters at issue. The Tribunal also heard evidence in relation to allegations of bullying and harassment. The Tribunal is satisfied that these were dealt with on a local and informal basis. While the claimant may have disagreed with the...