Sacked worker awarded €30k for unfair dismissal
An Employment Appeals Tribunal heard Robert Miller had previously worked with “MM”, owner of Eco-Hygiene Ltd, in another company. When the new firm was established, MM asked him to work for him as a van driver as long as Mr Miller obtained a full driver’s licence.
The company claimed issues began to arise in 2007 when it found the claimant at work apparently under the influence of alcohol. It also claimed he would invariably be on sick leave, particularly following a weekend or bank holiday.
According to the tribunal report, the company said a verbal warning was issued to the claimant in 2014 after items went missing after delivery runs. By that time, the claimant was driving the delivery van.
The firm said Mr Miller was asked to help out with administration work, specifically answering the telephone. On September 3, 2014, customers, including a valued and revenue-generating client, were getting no replies or answers to their telephone calls, prompting speculation the firm was perhaps no longer trading.
MM phoned the warehouse but got no reply. When he arrived at the warehouse, the claimant told him he was too busy to answer the calls.
The company said, in subsequent discussions, there was personal abuse of the owner’s wife, requests for a “pay off” of €20,000 to leave the company, a verbal warning, and a written warning.
It said the last contact appeared to have been two days later when a letter of termination was handed to the claimant. It said Mr Miller’s response was “see you in court” .
In his evidence, Mr Miller said on September 3 while he was helping to load the vans with employee “A”, the phone rang. As A was nearest it, he answered. Mr Miller said A told him the caller had hung up. He said within a minute his mobile rang. MM told him he was being paid to answer phones. He said MM then arrived on the premises. The claimant said the phone only rang once and he had been loading the vans. He said MM said he had a telephone call from an irate customer.
Mr Miller said he checked the telephone and there were no missed calls. He said a tirade of abuse then ensued.
Mr Miller said at no stage did he engage in a character assassination of MM’s wife or family. He said he never asked MM for €20,000 to move on, nor at any time did he seek to be made redundant.
He said a letter to him from MM on September 4, 2014, referred to MM, his wife, and family being subjected to an unprovoked verbal attack on their characters. MM considered the claimant’s actions the previous day to be of gross misconduct and he was prepared to give the claimant another chance provided he offered a full apology to himself and his wife and that the phone be given priority above all other duties. MM wrote that another instance of this would result in dismissal.
MM required a response the following day but Mr Miller was not in a position to respond until the following Monday. He said MM phoned him and said “if you haven’t anything in the following day you are gone”. MM arrived into work the following day and as he had not furnished any apologies, MM took out a letter and told him he was fired. He was not offered an opportunity to appeal his dismissal.
The tribunal found the company failed to follow fair procedures as it did not grant Mr Miller’s requested time to reply to the letter and the dismissal letter gave no right of appeal.
