A Limerick-based trade union official who lost his job after a dispute with his employer relating to an instruction that he work in Dublin for a period has been found by the Labour Court to have been unfairly dismissed but to have contributed substantially to his employer’s decision to let him go.
Alan Douglas, who had worked for Connect since December 2015, was appealing a decision by an adjudication officer at the Workplace Relations Commission that his dismissal by the trade union had not been unfair.
The Labour Court set that decision aside on the basis that aspects of the procedures followed by the union were unfair but found that Mr Douglas, who had earned €84,293 while working for Connect before his dismissal on July 4th, 2019, was 80 per cent responsible for the decision to end his employment. Given the particular efforts he had gone to mitigate his resulting loss, it awarded him €14,152 in compensation, which represented 20 per cent of the €70,752 financial loss it found to have been attributable to the union’s decision.
In its submission to the court the union said Mr Douglas had, along with a number of other officials, been instructed to participate in a campaign focused on the construction sector in Dublin for a period totalling 13 weeks. Assistance with expenses incurred was to be provided. It said temporary relocations of this nature were not unusual.
‘They think they’re no good and that they shouldn’t be in this world’
Jonathan Coe: ‘The morning after the election felt like waking up in a safe room, having been in an abusive relationship for 14 years’
Irish postpunk band Gurriers: ‘Everyone asks about the Dublin music scene. It’s not just Dublin any more, it’s everywhere’
Hugh Linehan: Cillian Murphy’s Small Things Like These has become a cause celebre of the Make Ireland Great Again brigade
It said Mr Douglas attended for four days during an initial two-week period then declined to engage with the rest of the campaign. In subsequent exchanges with the union’s General Secretary a compromise arrangement was agreed but Mr Douglas subsequently withdrew his support for it and said he had referred the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission. Mr Douglas, it said, was reminded that he was bound, under the terms of his employment, to obey an instruction of the General Secretary but he “responded to state that he would be remaining in Limerick as per his contract terms”.
In accordance with its normal procedures, it said, an investigation was established and this was followed by a disciplinary hearing after which it was recommended that Mr Douglas be dismissed for failing to obey an instruction by the General Secretary. Mr Douglas appealed the decision but a meeting of the National Executive Committee (NEC) recommended that the dismissal be upheld.
In response, Mr Douglas submitted that at a meeting on December 14th, 2018, the General Secretary told Mr Douglas of his intention to relocate him to Dublin “because of concerns as regards his lack of experience, age, capability and mental health”. This, he said, had followed a complaint by a colleague.
On January 2nd, 2019, he said, he then received an email advising him that the Assistant General Secretary had requested assistance in organising the campaign and that he was to be relocated to Dublin while his duties in Limerick would be reassigned to another colleague. He was instructed to report to Dublin on January 14th, 2019. He responded to the General Secretary on January 8th to say that he would not accede to a transfer to Dublin.
Mr Douglas, who was represented in the hearing by Siptu, confirmed that the compromise had been reached but said it was his belief this was with a view to further talks taking place and that he then withdrew from the agreement when he was not given an end date for the relocation. He argued that his subsequent dismissal was unjustified and that the procedures were unfair.
In its decision, the court said it was difficult to establish the facts when they were disputed but neither side had called any witnesses.
On the evidence it regarded as undisputed, however, it found that Mr Douglas “was not under instruction to permanently or for an unspecified period of time to relocate his place of work to Dublin,” he had “refused on repeated occasions to comply with an instruction of the General Secretary and that, having regard to his contract of employment which incorporates the rules of the Union, these refusals amounted to unreasonable conduct on his part.”
It also found, however, that the involvement at more than one stage of the process of a small number of NEC members and, in particular, the General Secretary “fatally undermined” the union’s assertion “that it had conducted all procedures fairly when arriving at the decision to dismiss the appellant”.
In the circumstances, the court found, Mr Douglas “was unfairly dismissed and that the appropriate form of redress is compensation. Having regard to the efforts made by the appellant to mitigate his losses and the contribution his own conduct made to his dismissal, the court orders the respondent to pay the appellant compensation in the amount of €14,152.”
