McDonnell v Concrete Protection & Repair Systems Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2015
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2015] 5 JIEC 2701
• Docket Number: UD160/2014
• Date: 27 May 2015

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. UD160/2014

CLAIM OF:

Oliver McDonnell

and

Concrete Protection & Repair Systems Limited

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran B.L.

Members: Ms J. Winters

Mr P. Trehy

heard this claim at Dublin on 27th May 2015

Respondent's case:

1 The owner of the respondent business Mr T told the Tribunal that it was a family business consisting of eight employees, three of which were family members. He gave evidence of business difficulties and pay cuts implemented during the recession. The respondent tried and successfully succeeded in keeping people in employment rather than make them redundant. He required his staff to ring into the office if a job finished early and this was confirmed in memo's put in wage packets. Staff signed time-sheets and he asked that they not be falsified.

2 Mr T said that he always respected the claimant but in June 2012 (while the company was losing money) the claimant had three different complaints made against him due to poor workmanship. On one occasion his time sheet stated that he left work at 4pm but the client said he was gone off site by 1pm. On another occasion the respondent received a fixed penalty notice for a speeding violation at a time when the claimant was obviously travelling home but should have been on site. A disciplinary meeting was held with the claimant on 4^th July 2012and he was given paid time off to resolve any issues he had, along with a final written warning.

3 Things went well for a year or so but in July 2013 an incident occurred when a major customer asked for a site visit and the claimant said there was no way he could be there, the job he was on would not be finished before 5pm. Mr T said he and his son drove to the location and they spotted the claimant in his van at 1.15pm, obviously on his way home. Memos went to all employees again reminding them of procedures regarding finish times but the final straw came in September when Mr T called to a site in Portlaoise at 12.45pm and was told by security that the claimant and his crew had left at 12.45pm "the same time as they left at yesterday".

4 Mr T called the claimant to his office on 5^th September and asked him "why"? The claimant refused to answer. He asked for an assurance that it would not happen again and the claimant again refused to answer. He dismissed the claimant as he felt that hours claimed were not...