An employee of ESB International has been granted an injunction by the High Court so as to prevent his dismissal and to require the employer to continue to pay him his wages. The background to the case is that the employee, Mr Mark Ryan, had been overheard commenting on the phone about not “coming into work armed”. This decision is a good opportunity to look at a high profile case in terms of disciplinary procedure and also how the employment injunction is becoming a more regular occurrence in Ireland. What is an Employment Injunction? The first employment injunction granted in Ireland was in 1985 and since then injunctions have been requested on many occasions, primarily where an employee claims that they have been wrongfully dismissed. However, injunctions are not simply confined to dismissal scenarios and they may be sought for various reasons such as ordering an employer to pay sick pay or prohibiting the advertising of a particular role or bringing the suspension of an employee to an end. As such, an injunction may require an employer or an employee to cease a certain activity or indeed to take a particular course of action. Ryan -v- ESB International The employee here had commenced working for ESB in 1992 and 17 years later in 2009 he submitted 18 complaints of bullying against his line manager and the HR Manager. These complaints were investigated but it was ultimately found that there was no foundation to them and his complaints were denied. Afterwards the employee had sought to further appeal the matter to the ESBI Tribunal and also the Labour Court but without luck. The whole process clearly got the better of the employee and when he contacted the company’s Employment Assistance Programme “Coming Into Work Armed” The fellow employees were concerned about this statement and after the matter was reported it resulted in a Garda search warrant being issued and the employee’s house being searched. The company referred the employee to a consultant psychiatrist who concluded that the employee did not grasp the seriousness of his comment and why it was of concern. The employee believed it to be nothing more than a “throwaway colloquialism”. It was concluded however that he was of a low risk to his fellow employees. ESB commenced a disciplinary procedure and placed the employee on paid suspension pending the outcome of the process. Taking into account the “armed” comment and the background of complaints the employee was notified that he was being summarily dismissed due to his conduct throughout the internal processes and the breakdown of trust and confidence in the employment relationship. High Court Injunction The High Court considered the whiole process and found that the employee’s complaints of bullying had not been found to be malicious or vexatious and therefore to attribute this as a reason for his dismissal was unfair. The High Court also found flaws in the investigation procedure. Accordingly, the High Court granted the injunction with the following requirements:
- The employer was restrained from terminating Mr Ryan’s employment pending a rehearing of the facts;
- The employer was required to continue paying suspension pay;
- The employer was restrained from refilling Mr Ryan’s role.
Conclusion Injunctions can seem like a complicated affair but they aren’t in reality. Ultimately, if an employer seeks to dismiss an employee or act in a manner which isn’t either fair or compliant with internal company procedures then an employee has a strong chance of being granted an injunction against their employer. Unfair dismissal and equality claims are not the only weapons in an employee’s arsenal and employers are advised to bear in mind the possibility of an injunction being sought, particularly when the employee involved is on a substantial wage. If you are concerned of the possibility of an Employment Injunction or wish to ensure fair procedure is followed in any situation please contact the Peninsula Business Services 24 Hour Advice Line on 01 855 5050 and speak to one of our dedicated Employment Law Consultants.
