EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
MN192/2013
Barry McCormack, - claimant UD677/2013
against
Comsconsult Technologies Limited T/A Fleet Connect,
- respondent
under
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr T. Taaffe
Members: Mr. L. Tobin
Mr. J. Dorney
heard this claim at Dublin on 20th March 2014.
Representation:
Claimant: Mr.Kieron O’Callaghan BL, instructed by Ms Carol Sinnott,
Sinnott & Company Solicitors, 10 Church Avenue, Rathmines, Dublin 6
Respondent: ESA Consultants, The Novum Building, Clonshaugh Industrial
Estate, Dublin 17
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent’s Case:
The respondent company provides Wi-Fi wireless communications products and services. PC is Managing Director and Project Manager of the business. The respondent’s largest client is a semi state body who generates 95% of the respondent’s business. The claimant commenced employment on 26th August 2011. He was furnished with a contract of employment. His role was Installation Manager. His work entailed installing Wi-Fi on the rail network. Initially the claimant’s standard of work was very good. Operational meetings are held regularly with the claimant.
AC is project manager for the semi state body. He contacted PC with concerns he had in relation to the quality of installation work being carried out by the business. PC tried to smooth things over. There were also issues with the claimant not wearing Personal Protective clothing in the course of his work. The semi state body wanted a third party to carry out their work for them. The claimant denied it was his fault and did not accept responsibility for the poor quality of work.
In around 17th September 2012 AC and DMcC from the semi state body met with PC. They were not very happy with the quality of work carried out. It was not up to standard. There were also safety issues and the claimant was in breach of safety standards. DMcC did not want the claimant on site. The semi state body gave PC time to consider matters.
On 24th September 2012 PC met the claimant and raised all the issues with him. The semi-state body did not want the claimant back on their site. PC had no alternative role for the claimant and his employment was terminated that day. PC offered the claimant an opportunity to talk to AC. The claimant shook hands with him and said he understood. The meeting was very amicable. The claimant drove home that day.
Claimant’s Case:
The claimant was hired by PC and commenced employment on 26th August 2011. His initial role entailed repairing kiosk machines and carrying out installation work on private coaches. He had a three month work review with PC and he was happy with his performance. Four months after commencement of employment he was furnished with a contract of employment which he did not sign. He completed personal track safety training and fully complied with all safety requirements. In around November 2011 he commenced installation work for the semi state body. He worked on his own.
In January 2012 KP commenced employment and the claimant worked with him. Two other employees were also hired by the respondent. They worked in teams of two. Following the claimant’s return from holidays in early August 2012 he was transferred to the north of the country to install Wi-Fi on trains in that area. The other team worked in the south of the country.
On 24th September 2012 he attended a meeting with PC. He was unaware before this meeting that his job was in jeopardy. The semi state body was unhappy with his standard of work. The claimant contended that he had an excellent standard of work. At the conclusion of the meeting he was told he was being let go, there was no alternative role for him and to go home and take his tools with him.
The claimant has not secured alternative work since the termination of his employment.
Determination:
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced both verbal and written.
The Tribunal is satisfied that there was present in the process engaged in by the respondent, which led to the dismissal of the claimant, a procedural deficit of sufficient consequence so as to render the dismissal invalid.
The Tribunal finds and determines that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Having considered the effort made by the claimant to mitigate his loss the Tribunal finds and determines that he made a reasonable and sustained effort in this regard.
The Tribunal awards the claimant compensation in the sum of €40,000.00 in respect of his dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
The Tribunal also awards the claimant €605.00 being the equivalent of one week’s pay under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)