Bus operator Go-Ahead has been ordered to rehire a depot supervisor after sacking him over his part in a row with control room staff over giving directions to a lost driver.
Robert Newton told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) he did not call a colleague a “d**khead” as had been claimed, but did say he “lost his composure” after being “provoked” on 18th August 2022.
The order was made under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 on foot of a complaint by Robert Newton against Go-Ahead Ireland, in a decision published today (WEDS) by the tribunal.
On the day in question, Mr Newton told a driver who did not know his route that staff in the control room could give him directions as he went – instructions queried by the control room operator, the company told the tribunal in legal submissions.
Mr Newton said he was “summoned” to discuss the matter by the control room manager, and went expecting a private conversation, only to be criticised by the manager in front of two other control room staff and shouted at.
He said he felt “belittled and harassed” to be “shouted at in front of everyone”, and that the two control room workers joined in and “added to the belittling”.
The company’s legal representative said the control room manager told Mr Newton he “should not have assigned an untrained driver” and that the control room staff could no longer guide drivers on their routes because of capacity issues.
Mr Newton’s evidence was that the control room manager said he would make the complainant’s life a “living hell”.
One of the control room staff then “became so aggressive that the control room manager had to hold him back”, Mr Newton said.
He said at that point he was “provoked” and “lost his composure” – expressing “critical views” about the control room manager’s subordinates – but denied to the company’s investigator that he used the word “d**kh**d” during the row.
Mr Newton was suspended the following day, the tribunal was told, before being dismissed on a finding of gross misconduct for “inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour”.
His trade union rep, Barnaba Dorda of the Siptu Workers’ Rights Centre, said there had been procedural flaws in the company’s handling of the affair – citing “unclear” allegations and the firm’s failure to hold other staff to account as a “clear lack of consistency”.
Mr Dorda said there were “tensions” between the Go-Ahead control room and Mr Newton’s department “for some time” and that the control room manager sought to address issues in an “unprofessional and openly confrontational environment”.
Mr Dorda further submitted that Mr Newton was presented with demotion as an alternative to dismissal but refused it “due to the humiliating consequences”, adding that dismissal was “clearly disproportionate”.
No witnesses were put forward by Go-Ahead to give sworn evidence to the tribunal, with its representative, David Horgan of Stratis Consulting, stating in a legal submission that all of its witnesses “chose not to be interviewed or cross-examined”.
“It is clear that the behaviour complained of was unprofessional and calling a colleague a “d**kh**d” is inappropriate,” Mr Horgan told the WRC.
Mr Horgan contended that dismissal was one of a range of reasonable sanctions and that fair procedures had been followed in the matter “at all stages” – adding that the bus firm “does not see reinstatement as a viable option”.
In his decision, adjudicating officer John Harraghy noted correspondence between Mr Newton’s trade union and the firm on bringing witnesses to be cross-examined as part of the company investigation process.
The company replied to state that the witnesses “had declined to attend” and could not be “compelled to agree to be cross-examined”.
Mr Harraghy wrote that the right to challenge accusers was “widely accepted” as part of fair procedures and natural justice.
“While these rights may be less relevant at a preliminary investigatory stage, they are paramount to any disciplinary hearing ... indeed, where the potential sanction could warrant dismissal, such a right cannot be ignored by the employer,” he wrote.
He said that it was “imperative” that an appeal “did not show bias”, but that the appeal outcome letter had referred to a previous alleged incident which had “clearly influenced” the appeals officer – calling it “a serious procedural flaw”.
“There was no weight given to his previous unblemished record, his co-operation with the investigation and disciplinary processes and his acknowledgment that his actions, and those of his colleagues, were inappropriate,” Mr Harraghy wrote.
“No reasonable employer would have dismissed the complainant in the circumstances,” he said,” ruling Mr Newton’s dismissal unfair.
Noting the company’s objection to reinstatement, and finding that Mr Newton had “contributed to the situation”, Mr Harraghy ordered the firm to re-engage the complainant as a depot supervisor and treat the nine months since dismissal as a period of unpaid suspension
