A FORMER STORE manager at a Dublin branch of ‘House of Tiles’ has been awarded €5,000 in an unfair dismissals case – after a bitter dispute with his bosses in which he was pressed to reveal his brother-in-law’s business plans.
He was told to work at another branch of the company, over 17km away, after he told directors he wouldn’t divulge whether his brother-in-law was planning to set up a rival tile retailer.
The directors said the plan to move him to Ballyfermot had only been a temporary measure – to give them time to figure out what was going on.
The row
Leslie Smith, who commuted from his home in Gorey, had been working as manager of the tile retailer’s Sandyford branch in south Dublin for over eight years when the dispute arose.
On 5 July 2013, he was performing his normal Friday duties, preparing lodgements and getting ready to go to the bank.
According to a summary of his evidence to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, Smith then called into his brother-in-law’s business premises to pick up car keys, as the pair travelled to work together.
The brother-in-law was a former employee of House of Tiles – and Smith’s presence at the other business unit was noticed by a director of the company, who had parked nearby and was watched them at the premises.
According to Tribunal evidence, Smith was called to a meeting with senior managers, including the managing director, straight after visiting the second premises.
From the summary of Smith’s evidence:
“The claimant was questioned about the other premises and if JH was opening a business in competition with them.
The claimant did not believe it was his place to inform the respondent if JH was opening a tile store. Heated words were exchanged and he felt threatened.
Smith was told that if his brother-in-law was opening a tile store at the unit, there was a conflict in interest in him working at the Sandyford store. He was told to report to the Ballyfermot outlet for work the following Monday.
Sick leave
Smith attended a doctor to deal with the stress and anxiety he was suffering as a result of the incident, he told the Tribunal – and took sick leave for four days. On returning to Sandyford the following Friday he was again told to go to Ballyfermot, but refused.
The managing director instructed him, according to Smith’s evidence “not to set foot in the fucking building”.
He continued to send in medical certs for the following weeks, and declined to attend meetings with managers during this period.
In the meantime, one senior manager called into his brother-in-law’s premises and asked to speak to him. Again according to Smith’s evidence “he wrote to the respondent on 19 August 2013 resigning his position due to the ongoing campaign calling to JH checking up on him”.
Timeline
In his evidence to the Tribunal, the brother-in-law (JH) said he had told Smith of his plans to open a rival tile store around 3 July – two days before the two were seen at the second location by the House of Tiles director.
Smith had no involvement with the new business, he said – until JH hired him in a general sales role in October of the same year.
The directors
The company director (DC) who first raised the issue confirmed he had watched Smith and his brother-in-law at the latter’s business unit for “approximately thirty to forty minutes” on Friday 5 July.
He called Smith to a meeting, which he described as tense – but with no shouting.
At no time was the claimant told his employment was being terminated, he told the Tribunal. Smith was merely being asked to move to the Ballyfermot store so the company’s managers could investigate what was happening.
DC said he had already heard rumours that Smith’s brother-in-law was planning to open a tile store in direct competition with them.
Meanwhile the managing director (PC) said he too had been highly suspicious that Smith was involved in the setting up of the new business.
He also confirmed the 5 July meeting – and agreed with DC that the store manager was only being moved to Ballyfermot so the management team could figure out the situation.
He denied using any threatening or abusive language at the Sandyford store the following week, when Smith had returned from sick leave – but confirmed he had barred him from the store, and told him to report to the west Dublin outlet.
Ruling
Making its ruling, the Employment Appeals Tribunal said the company had unilaterally changed the claimant’s contract when they insisted he work at the Ballyfermot store – even if only for a temporary period.
While the Tribunal acknowledged the firm’s concerns over Smith’s involvement in his brother-in law’s business, “the decision to move the claimant to an entirely different store, in breach of his contract of employment was however unreasonable, all things considered”.
He was awarded €5,000 for unfair dismissal.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say