An engineer has won over €5,000 for unfair dismissal after being sacked by Bord Gáis over claims he was offering to do cash work on the side for its customers.
Kieran O’Leary, who was sacked from his €60,000-a-year job as a service engineer for Bord Gáis in January 2024, had told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) there was “no evidence” he accepted cash from a woman who later complained about him.
Bord Gáis human resources manager Graham Bailey had claimed there were “multiple instances” of Mr O’Leary “offering to carry out work in a personal capacity for vulnerable female customers”, Mr Bailey said.
The company’s position was that Mr O’Leary had breached a competition clause in his contract of employment.
The WRC was told Bord Gáis had received complaints from three customers who had been visited by Mr O’Leary on dates in 2022 and 2023.
Giving evidence, Mr O’Leary said that he was called out to a property in April 2022 where the lady of the house had asked about having showers and taps fitted.
“She asked if I did. I said I did, I came back out of work hours to give her a price for that, but the job never went ahead,” he said. He said the customer later complained to his line manager, who called him to a meeting and asked him to explain a “printout”.
“I told him I’d offered to fit a shower and taps for this customer. He explained it wasn’t something I was supposed to do. I thought my contract stated I wasn’t to work in direct competition with Bord Gáis,” he said.
“At that point I’d been given the understanding of what the contract meant. That was the last time I ever offered my services,” he said. His position was that the complaint had been resolved informally by his employer.
Mr O’Leary said that he was asked a year later to explain why a customer had “alleged she had paid me an amount of money for a part I’d fitted”.
“When I went to this job, everything was done by the book ... everything in that house was charged for and fitted by Bord Gáis,” he said. He said that on a second visit to the property in February 2023, he realised the customer’s boiler was missing a “grommet”.
“That grommet renders the boiler dangerous. You wouldn’t be able to leave the boiler on, because it wouldn’t be sealed,” Mr O’Leary said.
“I was pretty sure I had one of them at home,” he said – adding that he went home, fetched it and installed it. He said this was to “save” the customer the difficulty of having her boiler turned off for the two weeks he said it would take to order the part in.
Mr O’Leary produced a small black item around the size of a wine bottle cork in a plastic package from his pocket and held it up for the hearing, and told the hearing it was an example of the part he fitted.
“That grommet would be somewhere between one pound and five pounds to order,” he said.
Next, in March 2023, Mr O’Leary said a difficulty arose with another customer as there was a casing around her boiler. He said his employer had “always instructed that we shouldn’t remove a casing” and she replied that “everyone else did”.
“We got over that. I probably was a bit rude,” he said. He said he noticed there was a difficulty with a circuit board on the customer’s boiler of a type that was carried as stock in his van, which he brought in and fitted.
Again, a complaint followed, he said. “They stated that I firstly fitted a second-hand part, which was later disproved by the inspector; [then] that I’d offered to do it for cash. I’m not sure how I’d be able to do it any cheaper than Bord Gáis,” he said.
He told the WRC that the boxes for parts kept as van stock “always get damaged”. He said he opened the sealed bag inside the box in front of the customer.
“She alleged she gave me €150. There’s absolutely no evidence to say that happened. There’s nothing to show I’ve ever done anything than my job that I was supposed to do with Bord Gáis,” Mr O’Leary said.
The complainant explained that the April 2022 matter was then “re-tabled” by the company during an investigation meeting in July 2023. He said he made it “clear” this had already been “dealt with” by his line manager but that his concerns were “palmed off”.
The tribunal heard the investigation was paused when Mr O’Leary went on sick leave. “I’d had a nervous breakdown,” he said.
He also took issue with the fact that a formal grievance he raised about the investigation process did not proceed when he was later certified fit to participate, but that the disciplinary process did go ahead.
Adjudicator Dónal Moore wrote in his decision that customer complaints had to be “treated with some caution in making a serious decision on a person’s livelihood”.
Mr Moore said there was “an issue as to how much weight can be given to these”, but concluded there was “no logical reason” that customers would fabricate similar complaints and concluded there was a case to be answered.
The adjudicator found Mr O’Leary’s use of his own parts “does not appear to be warranted regardless of its well-meaning or intention” and that the claimant bore some fault in this regard.
However, Mr Moore said it was “not appropriate” that the 2022 complaint – which he said “never led anywhere” – was “conflated” with the 2023 complaints.
He upheld Mr O’Leary’s complaint and awarded him compensation of €5,289.08 under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
