Porter ‘demonstrated obstinacy’ by refusing to use staff car park
The Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled the operator of Marymount University Hospital and Hospice in Cork did not unfairly dismiss Tony Cashman over his insistence in parking in the visitors’ car park.
The tribunal heard Mr Cashman had worked at Marymount as a driver/porter since September 2007 under a community employment scheme before his dismissal in August 2012.
The hospital had a bus adapted for Mr Cashman because he suffers from post polio syndrome. His supervisor gave evidence that she had to issue Mr Cashman with a number of verbal warnings in 2010 over his poor attendance at work and bad attitude towards her.
In November 2011 all staff were requested by memo to use the staff car park.
Mr Cashman denied ever receiving the memo when he was informed in July 2012 that the hospital required him to stop using the visitors’ car park or he could face disciplinary action.
He was told by his supervisor he could park in one of the designated disabled parking spaces in the staff car park. Mr Cashman was subsequently suspended with pay after he continued to park in the visitors’ car park. He was given a final written warning over his failure to follow clear and reasonable instructions in relation to parking and other matters.
Mr Cashman submitted a report from a specialist registrar which stated he was awaiting a procedure to treat chronic pain in his back and lower legs.
However, the hospital believed the extra distance of 50m by use of the staff car park was not excessive and was nearer the staff entrance and changing rooms.
Although he was invited to resume work, Mr Cashman continued to use the visitors’ car park which a short time later led to his dismissal.
In its ruling, the tribunal noted that Mr Cashman had repeatedly ignored the hospital’s suggestion that he could invoke grievance procedures to address the parking issue.
It said the relationship between Mr Cashman and his supervisor had become fraught. While there were some attempts to resolve the matter, Mr Cashman had “demonstrated obstinacy.”
Rejecting his claim for unfair dismissal, the tribunal ruled the hospital had acted fairly after Mr Cashman had failed to obey a reasonable instruction.
However, it also foundit was unsatisfactory that the hospital had kept no minutes or contemporaneous notes of the disciplinary meetings.
