Driver sacked for causing a ‘grave danger’ at fuel depot gets €12,000
A fuel lorry driver who posed a “grave danger” to safety by driving at twice the speed limit has been awarded €12,000 for unfair dismissal.
The driver was sacked by his employer, a distribution company, over his speeding and overtaking another truck, which nearly resulted in a collision at the Joint Fuel Terminal (JFT) in Dublin Port.
The JFT stores more than 60,000 tonnes of combustibles, including jet fuel, petrol, ethanol and diesel.
The driver had been driving at a maximum of 34kmh in a 15kmh zone in October 2018.
He was sacked over the incident after his employer decided that the driver’s actions put himself and his colleagues in danger.
He sued for unfair dismissal and in his findings, WRC adjudication officer Eugene Hanly found the dismissal was fair on substantive grounds but that the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds.
He stated: “I have decided that this renders the dismissal unfair.”
Mr Hanly also ordered that the driver receive an additional €9,200 or eight weeks’ notice that went unpaid.
The adjudication officer stated that driving at a maximum of 34kmh in the area was a very serious matter and that it had the potential to be a disaster given where the incident occurred.
He found that on the balance of probability, the fuel lorry driver was speeding, had exceeded the allowable speed for safety reasons and so drove dangerously.
Mr Hanly also found the fuel lorry driver tried to overtake another truck, which was a most serious matter “and posed a very grave danger to safety in that depot”.
He ruled that what happened warranted a very serious response from the employer and the decision to dismiss was substantively fair.
However, on the procedures around the driver’s dismissal, Mr Hanly pointed out that the driver failed, or was unable, to attend disciplinary investigation meetings that led the employer to make a decision to dismiss him in his absence, despite their written warning of that possibility.
He found the employer should have postponed that meeting until the driver had recovered from an illness, despite the fact that he had not been co-operative with the investigation.
Mr Hanly also found that the employer was wrong to dismiss him in such circumstances.
He stated that the fuel driver made a substantial contribution to his dismissal and he was constantly uncooperative during the disciplinary process. The driver “continuously sought to delay the process and to frustrate it”.
Mr Hanly stated that the driver’s “constant acts of obfuscation have led me to conclude that he was becoming unmanageable”.
He added that reinstatement or re-engagement was not appropriate, “because I have concluded that the bond of trust has been broken”.