Worker fails in bid to become reinstated after hitting colleague
A general operative at a Galway manufacturing company – who was hospitalised after being physically assaulted with an iron implement by a colleague – has been out of work for a year.
The workplace dispute was the subject of a hearing of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which adjudicated on the case.
The complainant was employed for over 18 years as a general operative at the unnamed local company until he was dismissed for gross misconduct in August of last year, following an investigation into an incident involving assault.
He argued that he was unfairly dismissed and sought redress through reinstatement of his job by the company.
The hearing heard how on July 4, 2018 the complainant, who was on his knees at a vent, was approached by his colleague referred to as ‘Mr X’ by the WRC.
Mr X said derogatory words to the complainant; he was ”angry and had a head of steam” and leaned over the complainant and confronted him. Mr X was holding a large sheet of cardboard, which contained an “offensive drawing” of him. Mr X blamed the complainant for the drawing but he denied this and there was no evidence to support the claim.
The complainant said he was hit by Mr X with the cardboard drawing and he defended himself with a ruler he had in his hand for the cleaning of the vent he was working on.
The complainant was suspended on July 7 pending an investigation. The investigation panel found, based on evidence of another person, that he didn’t see Mr X hit the complainant with the cardboard and that the injury to Mr X “was not an act of self-defence to a physical attack”.
The report also refers to the ruler as an iron bar throughout.
Having considered all the relevant matters, the WRC said that the respondent had “substantial grounds for dismissing the complainant on the substantive issue of hitting another employee with the ruler/iron bar”.
In its ruling, the WRC said: “The core outcome of this incident is that Mr X ended up with lacerations on his face, photos of which were produced at the hearing, and Mr X had to attend hospital for treatment to his face. Mr X has not yet returned to work since the incident.
“The respondent has a duty of care and safety to staff and the complainant’s action of responding (or initiating) to Mr X by hitting him on the face with a ruler/iron bar was disproportionate to being hit by Mr X with a cardboard box, if at all.
“While there were some procedural issues in this case, which in circumstances less extreme than the substantive issue involved in this case, could justify a decision of unfair dismissal, the gravity of the complainant’s action to hit Mr X in the face which resulted in him having cuts to his face and nose and remains out of work a year after the incident, outweighs any mitigating procedural omissions and I have concluded the respondent acted reasonably, within the band of reasonable responses, in dismissing the complainant. The claim for unfair dismissal fails accordingly.”