A wind turbine firm which repeatedly refused to allow a technician’s trade union representative attend disciplinary meetings has been ordered to pay him €7,000 for constructive dismissal.
The worker maintained the company had “targeted him” in the final years of his employment as a result of “perceived trade union activity.” The firm “strenuously denied” the claim.
Enercon Windfarm Services Ireland Ltd’s “repeated refusal to allow for an appropriate right of representation” was found by the Workplace Relations Commission to have undermined the worker’s trust in the company.
The tribunal upheld Paul McNutt’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against the firm in a decision published on Monday.
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
The key decisions now facing Donald Trump which will have a big impact on the Irish economy
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
The company, the Irish subsidiary of the world’s fifth-largest wind turbine manufacturer, had denied the complaint.
Its representative, Mairead Crosby of employers’ group Ibec, said Mr McNutt had entered incorrect hours on his time sheet for a training week and was investigated over it.
The company’s case was that an allegation of “entering fraudulent hours” was upheld and confirmed on appeal before the complainant was disciplined with a final written warning in May 2019.
Less than a fortnight later, she said Mr McNutt suffered a workplace accident and went on sick leave.
A dispute then arose around the handling of pay while he was on sick leave, Mr McNutt filed a grievance and did not return to work before he resigned in November 2019, Ms Crosby submitted.
Mr McNutt had been subject to another disciplinary process the previous year on foot of a charge he said was “without merit” — as he said he had raised a bullying complaint against his line manager in July 2018.
It was his case that the bullying investigation ought to have been finalised before the disciplinary probe.
“His concerns in this regard were ignored,” his barrister Michael Kinsey submitted, adding that the firm “failed to properly investigate”, denied him the right to representation and did not or provide an impartial appeals route.
He said his client was “again targeted for an unfair and misconceived disciplinary process” in February 2019 over recording “allegedly incorrect” working hours.
Mr McNutt denied the allegation against him in his direct evidence to the tribunal and said he had recorded his training hours in line with “long-standing custom and practice” in the firm.
“All employees entered a full day for the final day, even in the event that they finished early,” he said.
He said he was denied professional representation throughout the second disciplinary process as well.
His barrister said the “ongoing mistreatment” and the company’s failure to provide fair procedures meant the complainant was “forced to resign”.
Mr McNutt maintained the company had “targeted him” in the final years of his employment as a result of “perceived trade union activity”.
Under questioning at hearing from the adjudicator, Brian Dolan, the company’s managing director said Mr McNutt’s right of representation had not been “impeded” as the company’s procedures allowed for representation either by a fellow colleague or a “company advocate”.
Mr Dolan noted in his decision that Mr McNutt had sought the presence of his union official for two disciplinary processes and the bullying investigation.
“The respondent’s persistent refusal to permit of right of representation by the complainant’s trade union representative had the effect of barring the only form of professional representation that the complainant could have availed of,” Mr Dolan wrote.
He found this was an “ongoing and persistent procedural flaw” and “unreasonable behaviour” on the part of the employer in the circumstances.
Mr Dolan noted that Enercon “strenuously denied” Mr McNutt’s claim that the firm had “targeted him due to his alleged trade union activities”.
The “repeated refusal” by the firm to let a trade union rep attend “served to exacerbate the complainant’s concerns in this regard and led to the ongoing deterioration of the relationship of trust and confidence”.
Enercon “did not consider the complainant’s request but simply insisted on maintaining a strict interpretation of their internal procedures at all times”.
He upheld the complaint of constructive dismissal and awarded Mr McNutt €7,000 in compensation.
