Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alan  Whyte

Elite Form Manufacturing N/A

Representatives

Michael Mc Eneaney Michael Mc Eneaney

Steven Bellew Bellew Law

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-00073064-001

02/07/2025

The Complainant alleges that he as unfairly dismissed from his employment. The Respondent denies the allegation stating that the dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances.

Alan Whyte.

Mr Whyte gave his evidence after taking the affirmation. On the Thursday prior to the incident, Mr Whyte was informed that there would be a delivery to carry out on Friday and that it might not be ready first thing. He was happy to do the delivery and stated that it would not be unusual for deliveries to leave later in the morning.

On the Friday morning, he arrived, loaded one pallet that was ready, and filled the truck with diesel. While waiting, he assisted a colleague and carried out other work. When he finished that task, he observed that work on the remaining delivery items had not yet commenced.

He then carried out a repair job on another item. By approximately 9.30am, the item for delivery was folded and required welding. At 9.50am, he was informed that this would take approximately one hour. He then went to Brendan Hughes and stated that the delivery would not be ready in time for him to travel to Dublin and return by 1.00pm.

The order was completed at approximately 10.30am. At 11.05am, he was informed that the item had been welded, loaded, and was ready to go.

Under cross-examination, it was accepted that the delivery was ready to go by 11.05am and that he was asked by several people up until approximately 11.45am to carry out the delivery. He refused on the basis that he would not return by his finishing time of 1.00pm. He stated that he was not going to Dublin at that time of day.

At the hearing, Mr Whyte stated that he had personal plans that afternoon but accepted that he did not inform the Respondent of this and simply stated that he was not going. He denied the Respondent’s allegation that he had deliberately delayed throughout the morning with no intention of carrying out the delivery.

Ms Byrne then approached him and asked whether he was going to Dublin. He said no, and she responded, “Well don’t come back on Monday.” Mr Whyte stated that she was shouting at him. When asked under cross-examination whether anyone had witnessed this exchange, he named one individual, Paul, who was not present to give evidence.

Mr Whyte worked the remainder of his shift, carrying out an insulation job. He was then given a termination letter by Caitriona Brady and left the employment.

Four weeks later, he obtained alternative employment. His salary is broadly similar to what he earned with the Respondent.

 Susan O’Connell,

Susan O’Connell gave her evidence after taking the affirmation. Ms O’Connell is the Transport Manager and has been employed by the company for approximately ten years.

On Thursday, 19 June 2025, there was a delivery scheduled to take place on the Friday. It was known at that time that the delivery was likely to be late. Ms O’Connell informed the Complainant of this, and he indicated that it was acceptable.

On the Friday morning, at approximately 9.45am, Ms O’Connell informed the Complainant that the order was going to be delayed. Generally, deliveries would go out the following morning only if they were loaded the day before. At approximately 10.00am, a text message was sent to the Complainant stating that the load would be ready in about 30 minutes. The Complainant was of the opinion that it would not be ready at all.

The load was ready to go at 11.15am. At that point, all that was required was for the Complainant to drive the vehicle out of the yard. Alanah informed the Complainant that the delivery was ready. He responded that he would “see about that.” Alanah then reported back to Ms O’Connell and stated that the Complainant appeared annoyed and had said that “he doesn’t have to do anything.”

Ms O’Connell then went to Caitriona Brady, and together they went to Sandra Byrne. Ms Byrne asked whether she could speak to the Complainant, and Ms O’Connell agreed.

The Complainant stated that he had been ready to leave at 8.00am but that the load had not been ready. He also stated that his finishing time was 1.00pm. It was put to him that, on Fridays, it is very common for deliveries to run beyond 1.00pm.

Caitriona Brady.

Caitriona Brady gave her evidence after taking the affirmation. Ms Brady is the HR Manager and has been employed by the company for fourteen years.

On 20 June 2025, Ms Brady became aware of the issue when Ms O’Connell approached her at approximately 11.30am and stated that she was having an issue with the Complainant, who was refusing to carry out a delivery. Ms Brady offered to ask Sandra Byrne to go and speak with him. Patrick Byrne, the Complainant’s direct manager, was not present that day, and Ms Byrne was next in the chain of command.

Ms Brady stated that Ms Byrne later informed her that she felt the Complainant had been very aggressive in his tone towards her.

Ms Brady also carried out a performance appraisal of the Complainant in January 2025. She was new to the role at that time. On the day of the appraisal, the Complainant was given a copy of the document. The Complainant has stated that he did not see this document until after his dismissal.

 Sandra Byrne

Sandra Byrne gave her evidence after taking the affirmation. Ms Byrne has been the Managing Director of the company since 2006.

The delivery in question was due to be delivered to University College Dublin and was required to arrive on the Friday. Ms Brady informed Ms Byrne that the Complainant was refusing to travel to Dublin with the delivery. Ms Byrne went to speak with him and asked, “What’s the story, when are you going to Dublin?” The Complainant replied that he was not going and stated, “I will tell you who is to blame for all of that.” Ms Byrne stated that this was the final incident following previous difficulties with the Complainant. She stated that he began shouting at her and became aggressive.

The delivery was for one of the company’s largest customers, and the company would have been penalised if it was late. To avoid penalties, Ms Byrne’s son carried out the delivery.

Ms Byrne stated that she had had enough and dismissed the Complainant. She asked him to leave the premises, but he did not do so and instead remained and finished his shift. Ms Byrne then went to Caitriona Brady and asked her to prepare a letter of dismissal, which was subsequently handed to the Complainant.

The Complainant stated that he did not drive lorries and that his role was maintenance only. It was stated on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant had carried out approximately 30 deliveries in the year up to the date of dismissal.

The Complainant’s original job specification from 2018, at the commencement of his employment, states that his role was Service Engineer and Lorry Driver. This was also referenced in his performance review.

Patrick Byrne.

Patrick Byrne gave his evidence after taking the affirmation. Mr Byrne is the Facilities Director, and the Complainant worked under his direct supervision.

Mr Byrne stated that the Complainant’s performance was not satisfactory and required improvement. The Complainant frequently complained about a lack of necessary equipment to carry out his duties. Mr Byrne stated that the Complainant spent a significant amount of time in a garage across the road owned by his father. Mr Byrne queried how much of that time related to company work.

The Complainant did use the vehicle lift in the garage to service company vehicles. On one occasion, Mr Byrne went to the garage and observed the Complainant working on a vintage tractor. Mr Byrne spoke to him about this and considered that conversation to amount to a verbal warning.

Mr Byrne also stated that the Complainant used third-party contractors to carry out work that should have been completed internally. This was discussed during a performance review, and the Complainant was instructed to reduce third-party costs and carry out more work himself.

Employees may use company vehicles at the discretion of the company, subject to approval by either Mr Byrne or Ms Byrne. Vehicles must be collected with a full tank of diesel and returned in the same condition. This was described as a courtesy perk. On one occasion, the Complainant requested use of a company vehicle. Mr Byrne agreed on two conditions: that the vehicle would be returned with a full tank of diesel and that the Complainant would make efforts to repair his relationship with Ms Byrne. The Complainant then went on holiday. Upon his return, Mr Byrne was informed that the vehicle had been refuelled using company diesel in an underhanded manner and that no effort had been made to repair the relationship with Ms Byrne. No warning was issued at that time.

Mr Byrne stated that although the factory closes at 1.00pm on Fridays, staff are present until 4.00pm, including staff returning from deliveries and maintenance staff.

 Martin O’Hare

Martin O’Hare gave his evidence after taking the affirmation. Mr O’Hare is the R&D and Technical Sales Director and has been employed by the company for over 28 years. He previously held the role of Operations Manager and managed workshop staff at that time, although he was not the Complainant’s overall manager.

Mr O’Hare stated that the Complainant carried out maintenance work for the company and also drove lorries when required. When the Complainant applied himself, he was very good at his role; however, there were ongoing issues.

On one occasion, Mr O’Hare observed the Complainant in the office with his feet on the desk watching a YouTube video. A written warning was issued on 16 July 2024 and was handed to the Complainant by Mr O’Hare on that date. The Complainant has stated that he did not receive a copy of that letter.

his complaint was made pursuant to section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015. The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on 20 June 2025. The Respondent contends that the dismissal arose from the Complainant’s refusal to carry out a reasonable instruction, together with aggressive behaviour towards management, and that dismissal was justified in the circumstances.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was employed as a Service Engineer and Lorry Driver, as set out in his original contract of employment from 2018, and that driving deliveries formed part of his role. Evidence was given that the Complainant had carried out approximately 30 deliveries in the year preceding his dismissal.

On Friday, 20 June 2025, the Complainant was instructed to complete a delivery to University College Dublin, a key customer of the Respondent. While the delivery was delayed during the morning, evidence established that it was ready to go by approximately 11.05am. Despite repeated requests from several members of management up until approximately 11.45am, the Complainant refused to carry out the delivery, citing that he would not be back by his normal finishing time of 1.00pm.

The Respondent gave evidence that it was common practice for deliveries to extend beyond 1.00pm on Fridays and that staff remained on site until 4.00pm. The Respondent further relied on evidence that the Complainant was aggressive and shouted at the Managing Director, Ms Sandra Byrne, when she attempted to address the issue with him. Due to the urgency of the delivery and the potential for financial penalties, the delivery was ultimately completed by Ms Byrne’s son.

The Respondent submitted that this incident represented the final straw in a pattern of conduct issues involving the Complainant, including performance concerns, prior verbal and written warnings, and difficulties with attitude and cooperation. It was argued that dismissal was a proportionate response in the circumstances.

The Complainant accepted that he had been informed of a delivery scheduled for the Friday and that it might not be ready first thing. He stated that he was willing to carry out the delivery if it could be completed within his normal working hours.

The Complainant maintained that the delay in preparing the delivery meant that it was not feasible for him to travel to Dublin and return by 1.00pm. He accepted under cross-examination that the delivery was ready by approximately 11.05am and that he was asked several times thereafter to proceed, but he refused to do so. He stated that he was not willing to travel to Dublin at that time of day.

The Complainant denied that he was aggressive towards Ms Byrne and stated that she shouted at him and told him not to return on Monday. He stated that one person had witnessed this exchange, but that person did not give evidence. The Complainant worked the remainder of his shift and was subsequently given a letter of dismissal.

The Complainant also argued that his role was primarily maintenance-based and that he did not consider driving lorries to be part of his core duties. He further raised issues in relation to documentation, including performance appraisals and warnings, which he stated he did not receive at the time.

The role of the Adjudication Officer is not to determine whether dismissal was the only possible sanction, but whether it fell within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances.

It is clear from the evidence that driving deliveries formed part of the Complainant’s role. This is supported by the original job specification, performance reviews, and the uncontroverted evidence that the Complainant had carried out multiple deliveries in the period leading up to his dismissal. The assertion that he did not drive lorries is not supported by the documentary or oral evidence.

The evidence establishes that the delivery in question was ready to go by approximately 11.05am. The Complainant accepted that he was requested by several members of management to carry out the delivery between that time and approximately 11.45am and that he refused. The sole basis for that refusal was that he would not return by his usual finishing time of 1.00pm. It was credibly established that it was common for deliveries on Fridays to extend beyond that time.

The instruction to carry out the delivery was reasonable, particularly given the importance of the customer and the financial consequences for the Respondent if the delivery was late. The Complainant did not offer any alternative solution, nor did he communicate any personal reasons for refusing the instruction at the time.

In relation to conduct, the evidence of Ms Byrne, supported by Ms Brady, was that the Complainant became aggressive and shouted during their interaction. While the Complainant denied this, no independent evidence was presented to corroborate his account. On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the Respondent’s evidence on this point.

I note that the dismissal was summary and that no formal disciplinary process was invoked on the day. However, it is well established in this jurisdiction, that in certain circumstances, particularly where there is a serious refusal to obey a reasonable instruction coupled with inappropriate conduct towards senior management, summary dismissal may be justified.

This incident did not occur in isolation. Evidence was given of ongoing performance and conduct concerns, including prior verbal and written warnings. While the Complainant disputed receipt of certain documentation, it is clear that issues had been raised with him over time.

Having regard to all of the circumstances I  find that the Complainant refused to carry out a reasonable and lawful instruction. That refusal occurred in circumstances where the instruction was time-sensitive and critical to the Respondent’s business. Furthermore I find that the Complainant’s conduct towards senior management was inappropriate.

Accordingly, I find that the dismissal was not unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

The complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

Unfair Dismissal. Refusal to follow instructions. Mitigation. Reasonableness. Balance of Probabilities.