Security Guard Suffering From “Phone Addiction” Fairly Dismissed
The WRC has ruled in A Security Officer -v- A Property Support Service Company (ADJ-00004790) that a security guard, who had also previously missed a “substantial breach of security” due to his phone usage, was fairly dismissed due to his excessive phone usage.
Excessive Phone Usage
The employee in question worked for his employer as a security guard on one of their more high profile customer sites. It was noted by the employer that they could have dismissed the employee previously in December 2015 after he had missed a substantial security breach, namely a break-in, due to his failure “to observe on CCTV and react because he was found to be on his phone at the time and not monitoring the security cameras.” The employer at that time demonstrated leniency and issued the employee with a Final Written Warning which was to last on his file for 12 months.
However, on 10 June 2016, within 6 months of receiving a final warning, the employee’s team leader encountered the employee whilst his phone was lit up having received a text message. The team leader asked him if he had been using his phone and the employee admitted that he had been.
Company Policy
Notably, the emp-0loyer had a clear company policy in their employee handbook which stated that “staff members are not allowed to undertake personal activities on mobile phones devices during working hours, including sending personal texts and making personal calls. You are required to devote the whole of your time, attention and abilities to your duties during your normal working hours. Failure to adhere to this policy may be dealt with through the disciplinary process”. Accordingly, the employee was brought through a disciplinary procedure and ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct.
Phone Addiction
At the WRC the employee argued that the dismissal was disproportionate as the employer had failed to take into account a range of mitigating personal factors, such as the fact that he had recently separated from his partner and was having difficulties in terms of access rights to his daughter. The employee acknowledged that he had issues with phone usage “and he said like most young people, his mobile phone was like an extension of his arm” and that over a period of time he became addicted to using it, to play games, to text friends and for using social media sites.”
WRC Decision
The WRC Adjudicator, James Kelly, found that the dismissal was fair. It was noted that excessive phone usage was “a constant and reoccurring theme” in the employee’s work life and that the employee understood “the use of his mobile phone was wrong, could be adjudged as an act of gross misconduct as he had only within the same year nearly lost his job because of similar actions”. Notably, the WRC specifically noted that the role of a security guard is one where “full and concentrated attention” is of “paramount importance” and that the employee’s actions could have health and safety implications for others and/or could cause his employer to suffer serious reputational damage and the loss of a major client.
Comment
This decision is a common sense decision. The employee clearly deserved to be dismissed given his excessive phone usage, his failure to listen to management instruction in this respect, his failure to follow company policy in this respect, and particularly in light of his role being specifically for the purpose of providing security services.
It is, however, interesting to see that the employee was dismissed for “gross misconduct”. Given that the employee received a Final Warning previously for very similar behaviour with more serious repercussions, namely a break-in, it is surprising that he was then dismissed for gross misconduct for a less serious breach as opposed to being dismissed for conduct following warnings. On a technical note, if this employee was dismissed for gross misconduct then in all reality the WRC should only have considered if the incident on 10th June warranted summary dismissal in isolation. In essence, the employee could have won this case on a technicality, and certainly could have won his notice pay had he actually pursued that claim, and this demonstrates the importance of taking advice on the conduct of disciplinary hearings and the drafting of dismissal letters.
Security Guard Suffering From “Phone Addiction” Fairly Dismissed
The WRC has ruled in A Security Officer -v- A Property Support Service Company (ADJ-00004790) that a security guard, who had also previously missed a “substantial breach of security” due to his phone usage, was fairly dismissed due to his excessive phone usage.
Excessive Phone Usage
The employee in question worked for his employer as a security guard on one of their more high profile customer sites. It was noted by the employer that they could have dismissed the employee previously in December 2015 after he had missed a substantial security breach, namely a break-in, due to his failure “to observe on CCTV and react because he was found to be on his phone at the time and not monitoring the security cameras.” The employer at that time demonstrated leniency and issued the employee with a Final Written Warning which was to last on his file for 12 months.
However, on 10 June 2016, within 6 months of receiving a final warning, the employee’s team leader encountered the employee whilst his phone was lit up having received a text message. The team leader asked him if he had been using his phone and the employee admitted that he had been.
Company Policy
Notably, the emp-0loyer had a clear company policy in their employee handbook which stated that “staff members are not allowed to undertake personal activities on mobile phones devices during working hours, including sending personal texts and making personal calls. You are required to devote the whole of your time, attention and abilities to your duties during your normal working hours. Failure to adhere to this policy may be dealt with through the disciplinary process”. Accordingly, the employee was brought through a disciplinary procedure and ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct.
Phone Addiction
At the WRC the employee argued that the dismissal was disproportionate as the employer had failed to take into account a range of mitigating personal factors, such as the fact that he had recently separated from his partner and was having difficulties in terms of access rights to his daughter. The employee acknowledged that he had issues with phone usage “and he said like most young people, his mobile phone was like an extension of his arm” and that over a period of time he became addicted to using it, to play games, to text friends and for using social media sites.”
WRC Decision
The WRC Adjudicator, James Kelly, found that the dismissal was fair. It was noted that excessive phone usage was “a constant and reoccurring theme” in the employee’s work life and that the employee understood “the use of his mobile phone was wrong, could be adjudged as an act of gross misconduct as he had only within the same year nearly lost his job because of similar actions”. Notably, the WRC specifically noted that the role of a security guard is one where “full and concentrated attention” is of “paramount importance” and that the employee’s actions could have health and safety implications for others and/or could cause his employer to suffer serious reputational damage and the loss of a major client.
Comment
This decision is a common sense decision. The employee clearly deserved to be dismissed given his excessive phone usage, his failure to listen to management instruction in this respect, his failure to follow company policy in this respect, and particularly in light of his role being specifically for the purpose of providing security services.
It is, however, interesting to see that the employee was dismissed for “gross misconduct”. Given that the employee received a Final Warning previously for very similar behaviour with more serious repercussions, namely a break-in, it is surprising that he was then dismissed for gross misconduct for a less serious breach as opposed to being dismissed for conduct following warnings. On a technical note, if this employee was dismissed for gross misconduct then in all reality the WRC should only have considered if the incident on 10th June warranted summary dismissal in isolation. In essence, the employee could have won this case on a technicality, and certainly could have won his notice pay had he actually pursued that claim, and this demonstrates the importance of taking advice on the conduct of disciplinary hearings and the drafting of dismissal letters.
