THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF: 817/06		 

CLAIMANT	Thomas Joseph Ramsey		

RESPONDENT	The Salvation Army		

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:		Mr Cross	

Panel Members:	Miss Graham
			Mr McParland	

Appearances:

The claimant did not appear at the tribunal and was not represented.

The respondent was represented by Ms J Scott of Messrs, Crawford & Lockhart Solicitors.

The Issue.

1.	In the absence of the claimant the tribunal read his application to the tribunal which was the only evidence available to it, of the claimant’s case. He stated that on his being absent from work, having suffered an injury at work, he was called to a disciplinary meeting and dismissed with 12 weeks notice pay. The respondent claimed that it had followed the proper procedures and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.

The Evidence.

2.	Other than what was contained in his application there was no evidence from the claimant. The respondent’s evidence consisted of a witness statement of Ms Alexandra O’Hare, the Divisional Director of the respondent.

The Facts.

The tribunal found the following facts.

3.	The claimant, who was employed as a general cleaner, at the respondent’s centre, at Centenary House Belfast, had a long term medical problem. This had led to numerous absences from work over a period of three years.

4.	On 9 August 2005 the claimant gave the respondent consent to obtain a medical report from his GP. This showed a serious alcohol abuse problem. 

5.	The respondent spent a long period trying to work with the claimant to help him resolve this problem but without success. There were more and more absences.

6.	 On 27 March 2006, after various earlier meetings at which the problem had been discussed, the claimant was dismissed. The respondent’s Medical Officer in viewing the claimant’s GP’s report considered, as did the GP, that the claimant was not in a state where he was safe to work. Furthermore, despite many efforts of the respondent to assist, there was no plan in place for the claimant to undertake a detoxification programme. 

7.	The claimant was dismissed with appropriate notice and told of his right to appeal. He did not appeal.

The Law on the matter.

8.	The claimant has a right not to be unfairly dismissed, which is set out in Article 126 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996. Under Article 130 of that Order, the employer must show that the reason for the dismissal falls within one of the grounds set out in Article 130(2), if he is to avoid the claim of unfair dismissal. One of the grounds in Article 130(2) is the claimant’s lack of capability to carry out his work, which is further defined as due to a problem associated with his health or, any physical or mental condition.

Decision of the tribunal.

9.	The tribunal hold that the claimant suffered from a serious alcohol dependency problem, which made it unsafe for him to continue to carry on his employment. He was therefore fairly dismissed.

10.	 The respondent took all appropriate measures to investigate this sad case, it tried to assist the claimant with the resources available to it, but without success. The respondent having proceeded to take all medical advice available to it, with the consent of the claimant, was left with no reasonable alternative but to dismiss the claimant. Which it did fairly

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 	27 October 2006, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: