[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Stevenson v McCrory Scaffolding (NI) Ltd [2005] NIIT 690_04 (11 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/690_04.html Cite as: [2005] NIIT 690_4, [2005] NIIT 690_04

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 690/04

APPLICANT: Tony Stevenson

RESPONDENT: McCrory Scaffolding (NI) Limited

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant was unfairly dismissed but that no compensation is payable by the respondent.

Appearances:

The applicant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Mr J Park BL, instructed by McIldowies, Solicitor

SUMMARY REASONS

1. In his Originating Application the applicant claims that he had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent's Notice of Appearance indicated that the dismissal had been by reason of a physical and verbal assault on a Director of the respondent company.
2. The issues for the tribunal were:-

(a) whether the respondent had investigated the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence satisfactorily.

(b) whether, on the facts put forward, the respondent had reasonable cause to believe that the applicant had performed the actions and spoken the words he had been alleged to have spoken.

(c) whether the procedure surrounding the disciplinary process was fair.

(d) whether, if the procedures were not fair, the use of fair procedures would have impacted on the result of the proceedings, and

(e) whether the punishment imposed was within the range of reasonable responses to the matters alleged.

The tribunal found that on 18 February 2004 the applicant had called at his workplace to collect an envelope. He had sought assistance from Mr Stephen McCrory, one of the directors of the company, but this had not been forthcoming. Subsequently, having obtained his envelope the applicant had a confrontation with Mr Stephen McCrory. The tribunal found that this confrontation was aggressive in nature, included minor physical contact, and provoked fear. The applicant left the premises. The matter was reported to the head of personnel who sought information from the applicant with regard to the matter. At first the applicant denied that anything untoward had taken place. In a second phone call, after the applicant had been warned that the call was part of a disciplinary investigation, the applicant refused to come to the office to discuss the matter. The applicant gave no details of what occurred but did issue a further threat involving Mr Stephen McCrory. The following day the head of personnel reported this further threat to the Police.

In this regard the tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent in the shape of a statement prepared at the time by Mr Stephen McCrory and by way of evidence to the tribunal from the head of personnel and from Mr Stephen McCrory, to that of the applicant. The applicant had the opportunity, at the time, to challenge the allegations made and, if events had been as totally innocuous as the applicant suggested, the tribunal he believes would have taken that opportunity. The tribunal is satisfied that the matter was satisfactorily investigated and that there was ample evidence on the basis of which the respondent could conclude that the applicant had done what he had been accused of doing.

3. The tribunal also finds that the summary dismissal which was effected was a response falling within the reasonable range of possible responses to a situation such as been described.
4. The tribunal is not entirely satisfied with the manner in which the matter was handled. The tribunal can see that the respondent felt that an adequate investigation had been taking place by carrying out the phone calls to which reference has been made. In the second phone call, while no direct admission was made, a further threat was issued. A tribunal accepts that there was no need to conduct any further investigation at that point. However, there then seems to have been a meeting at which the decision was taken to dismiss the applicant. Although the applicant had refused to come to give details of the matter he was not asked to the meeting at which the decision to dismiss was taken, nor was he offered representation. Furthermore, while the head of personnel advised the respondent that the situation was one of gross misconduct and recommended dismissal the decision to dismiss was actually taken by Stephen McCrory, the subject of the incident. An invitation could have been issued to the applicant to attend a hearing; he could have been reminded of his entitlement to the assistance of a fellow employee; and another director could have been used.

While the tribunal considers that, in these respects, the procedures fell short of what would ordinarily be regarded as appropriate, the tribunal also considers that had these steps been

taken the result would have been identical and the applicant would have been summarily dismissed. In these circumstances, while the dismissal was unfair, no compensation is appropriate.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 11 March 2005, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: