A cinema projectionist who was sacked after his bosses accused him of deleting files off a server in a deliberate cover-up after the wrong Matrix film was screened has lost his claim for unfair dismissal.
Patrons who had bought tickets for a screening of The Matrix at the Sligo cinema were “extremely irate and angry” when The Matrix Reloaded was played in place of the first film on the evening of Thursday 12th July, 2019, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard.
The complainant’s solicitor — John Anderson — said there was no evidence to prove that his client deleted The Matrix file from the server.
Joseph Callaghan, who had worked at the cinema since 1992, denied deleting the files and said other staff had access to the server room.
QPR’s Jimmy Dunne finds solace in football after emotional week
In a country of such staggering wealth, no one should have to queue for free food
Samantha Barry: ‘There’s not a moment where I’m not representing Glamour. I don’t get to switch it off’
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
He lodged complaints with the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Payment of Wages Act against Omniplex (Cork) Ltd to appeal his dismissal by the firm in April 2020.
He said that after he discovered the day before that the software keys for the Matrix didn’t work, new keys were ordered from the distributor and provided by the cinema manager, Mark Foley.
The complainant said he uploaded them as instructed, but on the night the wrong film played out.
Mr Callaghan said he stopped the film and, on Mr Foley’s instructions, went into the theatre and signed the patrons’ tickets as vouchers.
They were “extremely irate and angry”, he said.
He then went to check the server and found the only film available was Matrix Reloaded.
Mr Callaghan’s position was that the incorrect film was subsequently deleted from the server.
The company said log files examined by the company’s IT department found that the correct movie, the original Matrix had been delivered “well in advance” of the screening and was deleted “shortly after it had been discovered the incorrect film was shown”.
“No evidence has been produced to prove that the complainant did in fact delete this movie and other members of staff on the night in question had access to the projector room and there is no proof that the movie in question was ever so deleted,” said solicitor Mr Anderson.
The complainant also said he had been told the CCTV system showed nobody was in the server room when the film was deleted.
He said the duty manager had spoken to him the night after the erroneous screening and told him about a conversation with the cinema owner, Mark Anderson.
Mark Anderson had said Mr Callaghan’s “head would roll for the wrongdoing on the night in question”, it was alleged.
John Anderson, the complainant’s solicitor, argued this showed there had been a “predetermined decision made prior to any investigation”.
Ibec employer relations executive Ciaran Loughran said the screening of the wrong film was “serious and disappointing” for the company.
“The more serious matter was that the mistake had been covered up intentionally by deleting the correct movie from the server, immediately after it was discovered the wrong one had been played,” he said.
The formal investigation into the matter found Mr Callaghan “had, on the balance of probability, deleted the film intentionally and could not be trusted”.
The complainant was dismissed on 12th February, 2020, with the dismissal upheld on appeal on 6th April, 2020.
In his decision, adjudicating officer Shay Henry, noted that when a time delay on the CCTV system was accounted for, the footage showed Mr Callaghan in the server room when the file was deleted.
He wrote that the company had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was guilty of misconduct and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
He dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
He also found that as the dismissal had been for gross misconduct, there was no requirement for pay in lieu of notice and therefore no breach of the Payment of Wages Act.
