EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Anthony Crabtree - Claimant
UD654/2012
MN489/2012
against
JJ Kavanagh & Sons Limited, - Respondent
Under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. Wallace
Members: Mr J. Hennessy & Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at The Courthouse in Thurles on 14th February 2014
Representation:
Claimant(s) – Ms Helen Wately B.L. instructed by Mr Sean Ormonde,
Sean Ormonde & Co., Employment Matters Solicitors,
Suite 9, The Atrium, Canada Street, Waterford
Respondent(s) :Mr Liam Barton, Insight HR, 23 Danville Business Park, Ring Road, Kilkenny
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The respondent company operates as a transport bus company which employs over three hundred employees. Employees include coach drivers, engineering and administration staff. The Company Director of the Respondent Company (PK) who gave evidence had responsibility for the day to day running of the business including the allocation of work and he outlined to the Tribunal the ticketing procedure which operates on all routes.
The company carry out spot checks on all bus routes which involves an employee randomly boarding a coach, obtaining the ticket book and any return tickets from the driver and then walking down though the bus inspecting each passengers receipts. Each driver receives training on the ticketing procedures. As part of this procedure drivers carry a float, take payment and must issue a ticket as a receipt.
PK met with the claimant on the 26 April 2010 following the claimant failing a spot check carried out on the 9 April 2010 by AM. The witness could not recall exactly what was said at the meeting other than he recalls that the claimant was informed that he had breached the ticket procedure. AM confirmed his attendance at that meeting in his evidence to the Tribunal and also outlined the details of the spot check carried out by him on the 9 April 2010. Following that meeting the claimant received a final warning.
The second witness for the respondent AM had responsibility for training gave a detailed account of carrying out a spot check on 9 April 2010 on the coach driven by the claimant. A passenger on board did not have a ticket. When the claimant was asked for an explanation for this he replied that he had no change. AM had provided training to the claimant and in particular training on the ticket procedure.
PK spoke of a further meeting with the claimant in November 2011 which was attended by another director. PK did not attend that meeting therefore no evidence was introduced by the respondent in respect of same.
The claimant was employed by the respondent for seven years. The claimant received a telephone call from PK at 10am on the 8 February 2012 having only returned to the yard after his shift at 2.30am. PK asked him to call to the office and gave no further details or a time. He went to the office almost immediately and when questioned about a spot check the previous day he explained that he had not issued a ticket to a passenger but was not given an opportunity to explain why this had occurred. At that meeting the claimant was dismissed from his employment. Having sought advice the witness wrote to the claimant on the 28 March 2012 offering a right to appeal the dismissal however he got no response to that letter. The claimant was not given sufficient time to seek witnesses or representation. PK told him that he had breached ticketing policy and dismissed him from his employment. He received no minimum notice payment and no offer of an appeal process.
No evidence of that spot check was adduced by the respondent at the hearing as AF was not in attendance
The claimant did agree that he was fully aware of the ticketing policy and disciplinary procedures. With regard to his dismissal the claimant accepted that an appeal was offered some two months after the dismissal on the 8 February 2012 following his representative writing to the respondent.
Determination
The Tribunal noted the respondent’s total lack of evidence surrounding what occurred on the 7 February 2012. The respondent’s lack of any meaningful procedures being followed in this case was also of concern to The Tribunal.
Having considered the evidence of both parties and the fact that the respondent did not offer any evidence in respect of the alleged incident on the 7th February 2012 the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed from his employment on the 8 February 2012. However the Tribunal does find that the claimant did contribute to his dismissal based on the respondent’s evidence and the claimant’s own admission that he had not complied fully with the ticketing procedure on the earlier date. In relation to the alleged final incident there was no evidence of wrongdoing established against the claimant. Further the Tribunal notes that while PK genuinely believed there was wrong doing on the part of the claimant in addition the claimant was not afforded fair procedure at his dismissal.
In consequence the Tribunal believes the claimant was treated unfairly by the respondent. Therefore the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 is successful and the Tribunal awards the claimant compensation in the sum of €18,000.00. The Tribunal further awards the claimant €2,350.00, being the equivalent of four weeks’ gross pay, in lieu of notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
Therefore the Tribunal awards the claimant the total sum of €20,350.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)