Coolmore Stud must pay stable hand €18k over ‘flawed’ dismissal

The world-renowned Coolmore Stud has been ordered by an Employment Appeals Tribunal to pay €18,000 to a former stable hand who was dismissed after he took €220.

Michael Coleman, who had worked for John Magnier’s stud since 2012 as a stable hand and in maintenance, was involved in refurbishing of a granny flat in Thorney Bridge in January 2014.

That flat adjoined the rented home of JN who was not a Coolmore employee.

On January 30 or 31, 2014, JN left the mail for his landlord in the shed and his rent money under a coal bucket.

On the afternoon of January 31, he discovered that the money was not there and confirmed the landlord had not taken it. The next day, he checked with a plumber and electrician that they had not been in the shed on the Friday.

He then phoned Mr Coleman who, when asked if he had taken the money, replied that he had not.

A matter of minutes later, he phoned JN later to say that he had the money but had panicked and had not known what to do.

Mr Coleman told the tribunal he was locking the door to leave when he saw money, stuck in the corner by the oil tank, in by the shed. It was €220.

He said he phoned his supervisor twice but was not answered. He decided to go to his GAA training and tell his supervisor about it at tea break the following morning, a Saturday.

The following morning as he got to the canteen for his break he got a call from JN. He said he did not admit to finding the money because he did not know JN and felt it could be someone else’s.

He said he wanted to speak to his supervisor first. When he went back into the canteen, he told his supervisor who told him to take it back to JN. He phoned JN and told him he found the money and was on the way over with it.

JN reported the incident to management on Monday. The respondent’s head of security (HQ) met JN on February 4, 2014 and took a written statement.

On February 5 he called Mr Coleman to the office and read JN’s statement to him. The claimant told HQ his version. He was summarily dismissed by HQ. The entire meeting lasted about six minutes.

After Mr Coleman’s solicitor wrote to the stud, complaining about the lack of procedures and the unfairness of the dismissal and asking the company to revisit the matter, a senior executive, DR, initiated an investigation. However, he upheld the dismissal.

In a letter to Mr Coleman, DR wrote: “While ultimately you did disclose that you found the money the circumstances of the find and the delay in telling anyone does not stand up to objective credibility analysis. The essence of the employment relationship is trust and regrettably, you have lost that trust.”

The tribunal found the dismissal was “seriously flawed”.

“The claimant’s case was not adequately or at all explored by HQ. The claimant was not afforded a fair or adequate opportunity to defend himself,” it said.

The tribunal also found DR “adopted a closed mind in reaching his decision on the appeal”.

“The claimant voluntarily admitted to finding the money and returned it to its lawful owner, within a short time of discovering whose it was,” it said.

“The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probability that a reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant in the circumstances.”