A security guard who feared a site visitor would soil himself before reaching a bathroom if he had to wait to sign in was unfairly sacked for letting him past, the Workplace Relations Commission has found.
In a decision published today, the tribunal ordered Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Ltd to pay the guard over €21,000.
The security guard, Ciaran Kelly, said he had been on duty at a client site guard house on the morning of 9 December 2020 when the man came to him.
"[He] walked up showing an email that he was visiting and asked could he use the toilet as he was bent over," Mr Kelly said in evidence.
"The visitor was clearly in distress and I told him to go to reception in the main building and use the toilet and return to me to get his pass," Mr Kelly said.
He said he let the man through the barrier and called his supervisor to tell him the man was "coming down".
The supervisor replied: "Don't let him down," Mr Kelly said, adding that his own response was that he "had to" as the visitor was "going to soil himself".
Mr Kelly told the tribunal he believed his employer "would have gone off the head" if the visitor had not made it to the bathroom in time – but that as it turned he got a phone call the Securitas area manager that night suspending him.
He said there were "clear misrepresentations of what happened and what was said" during the disciplinary process which followed and that his view was that the company’s management "had already decided they were going to terminate his employment".
IBEC representatives Conor O’Gorman and Declan Thomas, who presented the case for the respondent, said it was the firm’s position that Mr Kelly was "dismissed for allowing an unauthorised person on site".
At the time of the incident, they said, cases of Covid-19 were "rapidly increasing" in Ireland.
"In an ordinary situation it would be considered serious that a security guard would allow unauthorised entry to a site. When that unauthorised entrant may bring COVID with them it is catastrophic," they added.
The decision-maker in the disciplinary proceedings, Securitas account manager Brian Doyle, said the complainant "should have followed the procedures strictly as there is no option to divert, to move from them".
"The job is to only allow restricted authorised access to site," he said.
He said Mr Kelly "did not log it as an unusual incident, implying he didn’t see anything wrong with what he did".
Mr Doyle said his decision was to terminate Mr Kelly’s employment on the grounds of "breach of trust and breach of procedures", and that he "didn’t consider anything other than dismissal".
Gráinne Quinn BL, appearing for the complainant instructed by solicitor Liam Sheridan, said his employer had "always emphasised… the importance of treating everyone with who he came into contact with dignity".
Quoting from a company document issued to her client, she said Mr Kelly’s instructions had been to be "always approachable and willing to help".
"Your actions and manner will form an important first impression. There is no second chance to make a good first impression," she continued.
In her decision on the case, WRC adjudicator Caroline Reidy said dismissal was generally a "last resort" and that it had to be justified by "substantial grounds".
"In this case I do not see that this bar has been met," she wrote, adding that she did not regard the decision to dismiss Mr Kelly as proportionate.
"I find that the decision to dismiss the complainant was not within the bounds of a reasonable act by a reasonable employer," she added.
Mr Kelly had looked for his job back in preference to compensation, but Ms Reidy wrote that she would not make a reinstatement order, finding it was not an "appropriate remedy" given the nature of his former employer’s business, and the company’s stance that there had been a breach of trust.
Upholding Mr Kelly’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, she ordered Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Ltd to pay him €21,216.
