Dobbin v Citybus Ltd  NIFET 215_02FET (03 March 2006)
CASE REFS: 215/02 FET
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the respondent did unfairly dismiss the claimant. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £38,401.00.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Ms Sheehan
Members: Mrs Savage
The claimant was represented by Mr M Potter, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Murphys, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr P Ferrity, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Macaulay & Ritchie, Solicitors.
a) Certain acts of misconduct, such as not talking to another member of staff and refusing to attend a course because a member of staff was present, were acts that had happened with other employees and had not incurred disciplinary sanction. The employee Mr. Best who complained of harassment on his own admission had not been on talking terms with another Inspector for some years;
b) The repetition of the claimant's allegations concerning the crystal bowl occurred mainly within the confidential process of the investigation into the complaint of harassment;
c) The failure by the respondent to make any enquiry to establish when the rumour regarding the crystal bowl was circulated to the drivers at May Street;
d) The lack of impartiality by the disciplinary panel and Mr. O'Neill as the first line of appeal;
e) The lack of objective justification for classifying the actions of the claimant as "serious and persistent acts of harassment" and
f) The failure to give regard to the claimant's length and record of service.
The remedies issues
Date and place of hearing: 20 February 2006 – 3 March 2006, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: