Sajid Ali Khan v Alert One Security

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2007
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2007] 11 JIEC 2902
• Date: 29 November 2007
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Sajid Ali Khan (claimant) v Alert One Security (respondent)

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Fair procedures - Whether the claimant was dismissed following an incident at work - Whether his dismissal was fair - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD466/2007

MN328/2007

WT140/2007

CLAIM(S) OF:

Sajid Ali Khan, Apartment 116, Arran Quay, Dublin 7

against

Alert One Security, Homefarm, Donabate, Co Dublin

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms. N. O'Carroll-Kelly B.L.
Members:	Mr. M. Kennedy
	Mr. G. Lamon

heard this claim at Dublin on 13th September 2007 and 29th November 2007

Facts The claimant's manager gave evidence that the claimant refused to follow a direct order, namely to attend work at a different location during the course of his shift. The witness stated that when he attended the claimant's location on two separate occasions that day, the claimant was not in full uniform and consequently the witness issued two verbal warnings. The witness stated that when he attended the premises for the third time, the claimant became angry, abusive and insulting. The MD of the respondent company gave evidence that the claimant attended a meeting to discuss the incident with his manager. He stated that the claimant was requested to attend another meeting the following week but he failed to attend. The MD stated that the claimant was not dismissed but had not returned to work. The claimant denied the allegations made by his manager but accepted that he refused to attend another location. The claimant stated that the MD refused to accept his written statement of events at the meeting. The claimant stated that he was suspended at the meeting and when he contacted work subsequently, he was advised he was still suspended. He was later told he would get a reference and to “walk away”.

Held by the Tribunal in allowing the claim: That the claimant was unfairly dismissed and his dismissal was procedurally unfair. The claimant was entitled to an award in the sum of Eur1,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts and the sum of Eur1,000.00 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Respondent's Case:

1 The claimant's Manager (M) gave evidence. He had worked at the company for seven years and had been in a position of management for. one and a half years. He was working on Saturday the 11th November 2006 and was responsible for calling to various outlets where the respondent was responsible for security. He had to check that all security guards were present on duty and were attired fully in the uniform. M phoned the claimant at 3.00pm (who was on duty in a city centre outlet) and told him that he was required to attend work in a new location on the other side of the city. He was to take his break at 4.00pm when someone would attend to relieve him and then at5.00pm he would be collected and brought to the new location. The claimant refused to carry out these instructions. M attended the location at 5pm and the claimant was not in full uniform. He had discarded his tie and his jumper. When M asked him why he did not have his full uniform on, the claimant told him not to bother him. M gave him his first verbal warning. The claimant's shift finished at 8.00pm and then he was due to commence the second part of his shift at 12.00am until 4.00am.

2 M returned to the premises at 3.00am and the claimant was on duty. Again, he was not wearing his complete uniform and M gave him a second verbal warning. M left and then returned to the premises at 4.15am approximately. On this third occasion, the claimant was angry and spoke to M loudly, questioning his authority. M had phoned the managing director (MD) regarding the claimant's behaviour and this is what had upset the claimant. The claimant was aggressive towards M and M tried to...