A MAN who was fired for allegedly sabotaging the waste-water system of the plant where he worked has failed in a bid to get a ruling that his dismissal was unfair.
An Employment Appeals Tribunal found that David Mullane, Hillview, Waterford, was not unfairly dismissed by Honeywell Aerospace following an incident at the factory in November 2007. Honeywell said a hose in the waste-water treatment area was found to be rigged to pump potentially toxic liquid from a rinse tank to the public drains. The treatment system was bypassed deliberately.
The company said the incident exposed it to prosecution and the withdrawal of its waste-treatment licence. Mr Mullane denied he had been responsible. He was “shocked and devastated” about losing his job. He told the tribunal he regarded the instance of alleged sabotage as “crazy”. He had nothing to gain from being part of it and was certainly not involved.
The tribunal was told that Mr Mullane had received a verbal warning after an incident in February 2007 when he bypassed a necessary process in the discharge of waste product within the plant.
Honeywell’s operations manager described Mr Mullane as having “anger-management issues”. He accepted Mr Mullane was not accused of sabotage in the earlier incident. He had given him the benefit of a “large doubt”.
Mr Mullane accepted he had acted incorrectly during the incident in February. He had taken the verbal warning seriously and, “after 42 years of service, he had not deliberately sabotaged the plant as alleged”. In a determination yesterday, the tribunal said Mr Mullane, in denying responsibility for the sabotage or having a motive, had pointed to the fact that there was no direct evidence linking him to the incident.
“He has asserted that his dismissal was improperly based on unsubstantiated and contradictory evidence and on a prejudiced approach by the company.”
The tribunal agreed with Honeywell that the incident constituted gross misconduct. This was the case whether the incident arose by way of deliberate sabotage or for another reason, such as the possibility of reducing a workload.
“This could not have happened innocently,” the tribunal found. Honeywell’s workers would be aware of “the licensing and environmental protection implications of such an unauthorised discharge of potentially toxic liquid into the public waterways system”.
It said it was clear from the evidence that the perpetrator had to possess “a degree of knowledge” of the system and it was satisfied that the organisation of Honeywell’s investigation and the manner in which it was carried out was fair and was not prejudiced.
The tribunal said it was not required to determine whether Mr Mullane did or did not carry out the alleged act of sabotage. Its function was to decide whether Honeywell had proved that the dismissal was not unfair.
For this to be established, the tribunal must be satisfied that the alleged act of sabotage was fully and fairly investigated by Honeywell and the conclusion that it had been perpetrated by Mr Mullane was reasonable on the balance of probabilities.