Food manufacturing group employee secures order restraining imminent disciplinary meeting

A senior employee with a food manufacturing group has secured a temporary High Court injunction restraining his employer from holding a disciplinary meeting to consider allegations of gross misconduct against him.

The order was made in favour of Barry Brophy against TCFG Naas Limited t/a The Culinary Food Group.

Mr Brophy, who is the defendant’s head of procurement and capital projects, fears he would be fired if the meeting was allowed to proceed as planned on Wednesday morning.

Mr Brophy has worked with the group for many years but is currently suspended from over allegations that a side company he was involved with defrauded the group.

Sewage crisis: why this UK election is being fought on – and in – rivers and lakes

---

Hubristic Woodford was the orchestrator of his own downfall

---

Despite what people may think, taxes in Ireland are low compared to Europe

---

China’s view of the world puts Ireland between a rock and a hard place

---

It is alleged that the side business received “unauthorised secret payments” for services including the transportation of the group’s goods.

Mr Brophy denies any wrongdoing.

He says he and another employee set up a side company that was used to transport goods manufactured by the group.

He says that company was established in 2006 on the advice of one of the group’s founders Peter Queally. It was set up as a reward for Mr Brophy and his colleague’s efforts in growing the group’s business.

He said that nothing was ever hidden about the side company and the group benefitted financially from using that business.

Represented by Mark Connaughton SC, with David Geoghegan BL, Mr Brophy claims he has been subjected to a disciplinary process that is unfair and contrary to his entitlements to fair procedures.

The interim injunction was granted on an ex parte basis (only one side was represented) by Mr Justice Brian O’Moore on Tuesday evening.

The judge was satisfied to grant the order as, based on the evidence before the court, Mr Brophy had made out a fair question to be tried.

The judge also said the balance of justice at this stage of the proceedings favoured the granting of the injunction.

The matter will return before the court later this week.

Seeking the order, Mr Connaughton said his client “reluctantly” came before the court seeking the injunction.

Mr Brophy, of Jigginstown Park, Naas, Co Kildare, wishes to fully engage and cooperate with any fair investigation into the allegations against him.

However, it is his client’s case that the disciplinary process into what he accepts are serious allegations has been done in the absence of basic fair procedures and is fundamentally flawed.

Counsel said the defendant delayed in providing his client with documentation underlying the accusations against Mr Brophy.

While his client was recently given a report of the investigation into the allegations against him, this material should have been disclosed at a much earlier stage, counsel said.

Mr Brophy did not have sufficient time to consider this material in advance of the proposed meeting counsel said.

In addition, his client has not been fully provided with any specific particulars of what he is supposed to have done wrong.

Counsel said Mr Brophy believes the proposed meeting was merely a “rubber stamping exercise” to dismiss him from his employment.