Some may have seen the article in yesterdays Irish Independent which outlined a case being heard where a bus driver broke a red light and crashed into another vehicle. Its seems straightforward and there is not much in this that would surprise, however what was interesting was the outcome where the driver was fined €300, but the Court also said that the driver had been punished by the court and should not be further punished by her employer.
It is reasonable to see why a ban was not imposed as it would affect her ability get a job in future but it is interesting to see a Court raising an opinion on the employers right to take action.
The rationale behind this is that if a court reaches a decision and punishes the employee as they see fit, then it is against the wider public good for them to be punished any further than what has been adjudicated upon. In the case of Clarke -v- CIE (UD 104/1978) - the employee was given suspended sentence for larceny. The Employer dismissed him on foot of the conviction arguing SOSG and as breach of trust and confidence. When this case then went to the EAT and the EAT considered the leniency shown to first offenders in the criminal courts. They held that immediate dismissal after the court has exercised leniency may frustrate the court’s intention and went on to state that “a blanket policy of dismissal upon conviction for an offence unconnected with employment is at variance with the wider public good’.
In this case the driving was connected with employment as they were driving for their employer at the time.
Note for Employers
It is worthwhile to note this issue as an employer may also feel it is within their remit to take action on a case that a court as adjudicated upon.
However, even where the employee's actions are related to work and there is a clear severing of the employment contract employers should still view the situation in context before reaching a decision.
