Case Number: ADJ-00019035. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00019035 |
| Hearing Date | 08 July 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019035
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
Lorry Driver |
Transport Company |
Complaint(s):
|
Act |
Complaint/Dispute Reference No. |
Date of Receipt |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 |
CA-00024561-001 |
02/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/07/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Summary of Respondent’s Case:|
Adjudicator, The case before you today concerns a claim by the Claimant against his former employer the Respondent under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. The Company refutes this claim in its entirety.
Background to the claimant The claimant commenced employment with the respondent company in April 2015. The claimant was employed as a professional HGV Driver to drive an articulated vehicle for the Respondent Company. The claimant’s employment was terminated on 14th November 2018 following a disciplinary process whereby the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct as a result of two separate incidents which took place whilst driving the Respondents articulated vehicle, namely on the 2nd October 2018 and the 3rd October 2018 respectively.
Claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015
1. The claimant alleges in his Claim Form [Appendix 1] that he was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The respondent refutes the claim being made, as the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct – namely as a result of misconduct which represented a fundamental breach of the trust and confidence necessary for the employment relationship to continue. The investigation, disciplinary and appeals process were all conducted in accordance with the Respondent’s disciplinary policy and procedures whereby fair procedures and natural justice were afforded to the Claimant by the Respondent at all times. At all meetings the Claimant was afforded the right to representation.
2. Section 6(4)(b) of the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 – 2015 states:
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:
(b) the conduct of the employee
The Claimant’s dismissal arose wholly from his conduct, and as such the dismissal was not an unfair dismissal.
Background to the Claim
1. On the 2nd October 2018 the Claimant was involved in a car accident whilst driving the Respondents vehicle on the Main Street in Town X Co. Sligo where he collided with a parked BMW car causing significant damage thereto. Also, on 3rd October the Claimant was involved in a further incident at the Roundabout in Town Y, Co. Sligo. Further details in respect of both incidents will be expanded upon below and CCTV footage is also available of both incidents for the Adjudicator to view.
2. On 3rd October 2018, the Claimant was given a letter informing him that he was being suspended on full pay pending an investigation hearing into the two incidents referred to above. Details of both incidents were clearly set out in the said letter. The Claimant was informed of his right to be represented by a work colleague and was further informed of the potential outcome from the said investigation. He was also given a copy of the company Disciplinary Policy and Procedures. A copy of the said letter is attached at [Appendix 2].
3. The investigation hearing went ahead as planned on 12th October 2018. In attendance was the Claimant, Mr. MK (Head of Transport - Investigator) and Mr. KC (Translator). Notes from the said investigation meeting are attached at [Appendix 3].
4. It transpired in the course of the investigation meeting that the Claimant phoned Mr. DK (Transport Manager) on his mobile phone following the collision in Town X and following a conversation with the Claimant Mr. K also spoke with the driver of the BMW car which was damaged.
5. By letter dated 16th October [Appendix 4] Mr.D K was invited to an investigation meeting in respect to giving his account of what conversations had taken place on the day of the accident in Town X. This meeting took place on 17th October and notes from this meeting are attached at [Appendix 5].
6. A draft Investigation Report was forwarded to the Claimant by letter dated 19th October 2018 [Appendix 6] informing the Claimant that if he had any issues with the content or accuracy of the Report or with the recommendations therein then such should be raised by him within 5 working days from receipt of the Report and if any points of concern were to be considered then a further investigation may be undertaken. The Claimant had not responded with the time specified. A copy of the said Report is attached at [Appendix 7].
7. The Report recomended that the allegations be considered for disciplinary procedures in line with Company Policy.
8. By letter dated 7th November 2018 [Appendix 8] the claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing to take place on 9th November 2018. This letter further outlined the allegations being put to the Claimant and also referenced the Investigation Report including meeting notes and CCTV footage which had all previously be given to him. Again, he was furnished with a copy of the Respondents disciplinary procedures and advised that he had the right to be accompanied by a... |
To continue reading
Request your trial