A barman who was sacked after pub customers accused him of drinking on the job while its owner was absent for cancer treatment has won €9,000 for unfair dismissal.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled Cerlock Ltd, the operator of an unidentified pub in Limerick city, was not entitled to rely on CCTV footage of the worker, Kenneth Malone, pouring himself a drink, as he had been sacked without a chance to view the recordings.
Upholding Mr Malone’s claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the WRC adjudicator who heard the case called the employer’s handling of the matter “a catalogue of all the things you should not do to support a claim that someone was dismissed fairly”.
The publican, Lee-Ann Graham, said Mr Malone, who had worked for her since 2015, had admitted to her that he had an “alcohol issue” after she served him with warnings over his work performance and attendance in February last year.
Your work questions answered: Can bonuses be deducted pro-rata during a maternity leave?
Palantir, company at centre of row surrounding TD Eoin Hayes, is no stranger to controversy at home or abroad
Tips for avoiding a January credit-card hangover
Can I work for my foreign employer from my home in Ireland?
She said the barman took leave to seek treatment but when she returned she was diagnosed with cancer and had to go for urgent treatment, leaving the running of the pub to Mr Malone.
Later that year, Ms Graham learned from customers that Mr Malone was drinking at work, she said.
The pub’s CCTV confirmed it and Mr Malone “did not deny” the allegation when she raised what she had seen with him on July 18th 2022, she said.
At the hearing, Mr Malone denied the employer’s claim that he had been drinking in a storeroom when he was seen leaving it with an empty can in his hand.
Mr Malone said he was sacked on the spot on this date and that Ms Graham only invited him to a “disciplinary meeting” a week later as “window-dressing”.
Ms Graham’s evidence was that she had only suspended Mr Malone on July 18th pending a disciplinary meeting, which the complainant “refused to attend”.
In her decision, adjudicator Janet Hughes noted that the video evidence submitted by the publican after the hearing showed Mr Malone did pour himself a drink “on occasion” but that the worker never had a chance to give his version of events as he was not shown the footage.
“My overall conclusion is that the respondent has not proven that the complainant was drinking in the storeroom/off-licence,” she wrote.
“While he can be seen to have a drink or two at the bar counter, the CCTV footage is not 100 per cent reliable that this was gross misconduct and not ‘one for the bartender’ at the end of a shift,” Ms Hughes added.
Ruling the dismissal unfair, she ordered the pub operator to pay €9,000, a sum equivalent to three-quarters of the losses claimed by Mr Malone.
Mr Malone’s further complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and the Organisation of Working Time Act were rejected.
