Locations
The claimant was employed by Bus Eireann and was dismissed following a collision with a parked car at the Waterford bus depot in November 2013. The Services Manager was appointed to investigate the incident and a disciplinary meeting was held on 8 November 2013. This meeting served as both the investigation and disciplinary meeting, however no allegations were not put to the claimant in advance of the meeting. The parked car was owned by Mr C, a manager in a related company. The Services Manager appears to have been influenced by a letter of complaint from Mr C and CCTV footage of the incident which, according to the Services Manager, showed that the claimant was aware of the parked car and had used the bus to intimidate Mr C. The claimant denied any suggestion that he deliberately hit the car. The Services Manager did not consider factors put forward by the claimant that the collision was an accident. The claimant was dismissed and the dismissal upheld following an internal appeal. A number of interesting issues are considered by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (“EAT”) in its determination. Firstly, there was some debate regarding the admissibility of the CCTV footage. The claimant’s representative objected to use of CCTV footage for disciplinary purposes. However, the EAT found that it was wholly appropriate to admit the CCTV footage in this case and that there was a public interest in doing so. The EAT also considered a number of procedural issues which arose in the case. It was critical of the absence of minutes for both the disciplinary and appeal meetings, particularly where there was conflicting evidence. The EAT noted that the burden of proof is on the employer where it is unable to resolve conflicts in evidence. Furthermore, the Services Manager who conducted the process received the initial complaint from Mr C prior to the commencement of the disciplinary process and the EAT felt that this lead to a predetermination of the claimant’s case. The EAT found that this amounted to a “fundamental and fatal flaw”, particularly in circumstances where the Services Manager failed to conduct an independent investigation and the respondent’s procedures, which required separate investigation and disciplinary meetings, were not followed. The EAT found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded €25,000 compensation. The claimant was awarded a further €3,600 for minimum notice. This decision highlights the importance of conducting a thorough and independent investigation where appropriate in disciplinary cases. Employers should be conscious that the requirement to follow fair procedures is enshrined in Unfair Dismissals law. A full copy of the decision can be viewed here. Author: Lisa McCarthy