- It is clear that both companies in this case had effective documentation in place. Mitie Facilities has specific policies on computer usage signed by the employee in addition to clear training records on security procedure. ICTS could evidence strict security policies also with their clients. This is essential as the EAT has consistently held that if something is deemed to be so serious that it would warrant summary dismissal then the employer should have effective policies in place dealing with such.
- Both employees were brought through a fair disciplinary process which involved an internal appear to a different person. Fair procedures are essential in any case so as to allow an employee to put forward their defence and if a fair process is followed then it will strengthen the basis and fairness of any dismissal.
- It is important to note the circumstances in which these two cases arise. Both cases involved security functions in circumstances where the employee had completely failed in their duties. It is important to note that not every incidence of an employee reading a paper or watching youtube in work will justify summary dismissal. Each case must be looked at against its own facts and in view of the nature of the employer’s business. Where a security guard is failing to perform a security function then the repercussions for the employer are potentially very serious; this will not be the case for every employer.
There are few things in employment that irks an employer as much as an employee who is “slacking off”. Lost productivity can have a major impact on the business, let alone the fact that employee is being paid to perform work but yet is doing nothing to earn that payment. It is therefore interesting to see two recent unfair dismissal cases where the Employment Appeals Tribunal considered this very topic.
Adeagbo -v- Mitie Facilities Limited (UD692/2013)
This case involved a company that was responsible for looking after a site which included a car park, shops, apartments and private tenants. Indeed, the company received a substantial amount of money from their clients for providing this service. Security was vitally important and as such the claimant in this case was employed to work there as a security officer. The company could show that the claimant had received appropriate training in his role and made all employees aware of the importance of following procedures.
On Thursday 25 October 2012, a number of people gained access to the car park at 1.00a.m. which resulted in damage to a car. The claimant in this case was on duty at the time but did not notice that the car park was broken into. Indeed, it was discovered that he was looking at YouTube and various websites on the company computer. Using computers for this purpose was forbidden and the company could show that the claimant had signed a policy to this effect.
It was further noted that the claimant had falsified documents to say that he completed security checks at these times which was clearly not the case.
The claimant was dismissed following a hearing which was subsequently upheld after an internal appeal.
The EAT ultimately held as follows: “The Tribunal finds that the prolonged neglect of his fundamental duty on the night in question and falsification of the documents initially to cover up for such neglect in this instant is gross misconduct. In this situation the Tribunal finds that the admitted acts of the appellant were gross misconduct which justified his dismissal. The decision to dismiss the appellant is fair and reasonable.”
Monks -v- ICTS UK Ltd (UD323/2012)
This case involved a company that provided security services for transatlantic flights at Dublin Airport. The employee in question had been charged with monitoring an observing the baggage bins but it was discovered that he was reading a newspaper rather than fulfilling these duties. This arose in circumstances where the company were bound by a strict security policy with American Airlines who they were contracted to work for.
When the matter became known, the company suspended the employee and proceeded through an internal disciplinary procedure. The disciplinary was conducted by the Operations Manager and after the employee was dismissed, the appeal hearing was conducted by the Station Manager. Ultimately, the employee was dismissed for a “failure to perform allocated duties to any extent which constituted a dereliction of duty” and also a “wilful breach of a security procedure”.
Having assessed the matter, the EAT stated that it was “firstly satisfied that in all of the circumstances of the case fair procedures were applied. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the decision of the company to dismiss the claimant was reasonable particularly due to the context and nature of the respondent’s business and the complaint made.”
Learning Points
There are a number of important learning points that employers may take from these cases:
