A worker who said he only "locked horns" with a colleague because he was provoked by rebel music and being called a "English b*****d" has lost a challenge over his sacking.
Management at Breffni Air Ireland Unlimited told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that it decided to dismiss worker Timothy Seaton after they said he "head-butted" another worker on 7 March, 2022.
Mr Seaton did not dispute initiating the assault, but denied the headbutt, and said he only gave his colleague "a nudge". He pleaded to be let keep his €585-a-week job in the aftermath of the incident, which saw both workers sacked, the WRC heard.
His complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 was not upheld in a decision published today, following a series of hearings between November 2022 and January 2024.
The company's production manager Gary Johnston said he had noticed Mr Seaton was "agitated" on the day of the incident and was "provoked" by the other worker moving into his work area and "plunging his hammer into his work bench".
Mr Johnston told the tribunal he interviewed both workers for a company investigation. He said the other worker denied using the expression "English b*****d" but accepted that he "did play rebel music" in another part of the workshop.
The witness said he "hadn’t heard the rebel music being played", though he said there had been an investigation carried out when it was put to him it was mentioned in a witness statement.
Mr Seaton walked into the other worker’s area and they "both started fighting", Mr Johnston said. His evidence was that Mr Seaton "headbutted" the other worker and followed that with a slap to the head before he was able to separate them.
Mr Seaton was immediately suspended and both workers were sacked on foot of separate investigations, it was submitted on behalf of the business.
The company’s operations director David O’Doherty said he decided to dismiss Mr Seaton after he "admitted to assault".
The witness said he had to take the environment at the ventilation company’s workshop into account, particularly "the risk of a future assault". He said it was a "high-risk" environment where 30-40 men were at work with power tools, hammers and Stanley knives on hand.
Mr Seaton said in his evidence to the WRC that the other worker was "mouthing" at him and told him "You f**king English b*****d you are in my space now".
He said he felt "totally threatened" and "provoked", adding that the other worker "had a hammer in his hand and was playing rebel music in the background when he approached".
Adjudicator Moya de Paor noted that Mr Seaton "denied that he headbutted" the other worker but "just approached him quite closely and raised his arm to him".
Asked why he did not report the man to his line manager, Mr Seaton said he was not thinking clearly at the time.
"If I could turn the clock back, I would never have put myself in that situation," he said. He added that the other worker could have "smashed [my] head in" with the hammer.
Mr Seaton stated in his complaint form: "I did reach and nudged him, as identified in CCTV. We both locked horns, as I would describe and then one of my colleagues and line manager separated us."
"[I] was so upset that I allowed myself to be drawn into such behaviour, however it was, and still is, the only time I had encountered this bigotry," he added.
He confirmed signing the investigation meeting minutes but stated that they did not "always reflect the reality of the meeting".
His representative argued before the WRC that the company’s investigation and disciplinary process was "compromised" by the fact Mr O’Doherty was at both the investigation and disciplinary meetings, calling his ability to be impartial in the process into question.
It was further submitted on behalf of Mr Seaton that the HR officer who conducted the appeal was "more junior than Mr O’Doherty".
Ms de Paor wrote in her decision that she could see Mr Seaton’s difficulty with "the playing of Irish rebel music" that he thought was "aimed at him", along with the alleged discriminatory remarks about his nationality.
"I can understand that the complainant felt threatened by the named employee on the day of the incident given his aggressive demeanour," she wrote.
However, she wrote that as Mr Seaton had his line manager "beside him" at the time, he could have gone to him instead of choosing to "resolve the matter by way of physical violence".
She noted that in his evidence, the complainant did not dispute that he initiated a serious physical assault.
She wrote that Mr O’Doherty should have had no role in the investigation process, and that someone more senior ought to have heard Mr Seaton’s appeal.
However, she wrote that she was required to weigh up "all the circumstances" and concluded that the Mr Seaton’s conduct in carrying out "a serious physical assault which amounted to gross misconduct was the main and only reason for his dismissal".
She ruled that his sacking was within the "band of reasonable responses" open to an employer in the circumstances and dismissed his claim.
