Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> O'Brien v British Telecommunications PLC [2010] NIIT 07611_09IT (11 February 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/07611_09IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 7611_9IT, [2010] NIIT 07611_09IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 07611/09

CLAIMANT: Noel Damien O’Brien

RESPONDENT: British Telecommunications PLC

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was fairly dismissed and his complaint of unfair dismissal is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms Julie Knight

Members: Mr Adrian Huston

Mr James Welsh

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr Pat Moore of PM Associates.

The respondent was represented by Mr Peter Hopkins, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Napier and Sons Solicitors.

Issues

1. The issues for the tribunal were:

a. Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to Article 130 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

b. If so, what is the appropriate remedy?

Evidence

The tribunal considered the claim form, the response, the oral evidence of the witnesses for the respondent Mr Mark Cowden and Mr Gareth McWilliams, the claimant, Mr Noel O’Brien, and his witness, Mrs Patricia Feenan, together with documentation agreed between the parties. The tribunal generally preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses whom it found to be more credible witnesses, than the claimant.

Findings of Fact

2. (1) The claimant, Mr Noel O’Brien, was employed by the respondent, British Telecommunications PLC as a sales advisor in its Northern Ireland Consumer Sales Team from 27 July 1997 until 17 September 2009. It was accepted that the claimant was a high performing employee. His line manager was the Unit Manager, Mrs Angela Rogan, who in turn was managed by Centre Manager Mr Conal Duffy.

(2) On 2 March 2009 a customer complained that the claimant had repeatedly refused his requests to be put through to the claimant’s manager or supervisor, the manner of the claimant in dealing with his enquiry and that the claimant had hung up on him. Ms Danielle Donaghy, who was acting up in the absence of Ms Rogan, discussed the complaint with the claimant during a coaching session on the same day, after seeking advice from another manager and raising a case on the BT people system to ask for advice from Accenture Human Resources services. The claimant declined Ms Donaghy’s request to listen to a recording of the call as he was able to remember his conversation with the customer. The claimant replied “no comment” when Ms Donaghy asked him if he had cut off the call. Ms Donaghy informed the claimant that she would pass this on during the handover to Ms Rogan upon her return to work.

(3) The claimant was asked to attend a fact-finding interview on 10 March 2009 with Ms Rogan under the respondent’s disciplinary procedure to discuss allegations that on 2 March 2009 the claimant failed to follow the correct complaints procedure by refusing to allow a customer to speak to a manager, that he spoke to the customer in an inappropriate way and cut the customer off. The claimant again refused to listen to the telephone conversation and answered “no comment” when Ms Rogan asked him about his understanding of the complaints procedure and whether he had followed the correct procedure on this call. The claimant asserted that Ms Donaghy had informed him that the matter would not be taken any further, other than being mentioned in a handover to the manager and stated that the customer had offered his apologies to him. On 13 March 2009 the claimant attended a further meeting with Ms Rogan who handed him a request for a written explanation as part of the investigation into an allegation of gross misconduct. She advised that his written response should be returned by 16 March 2009. The claimant asked Ms Rogan “Is that it?” She replied “Yes”. He got up and as he left the room, the door slammed loudly against the wall. The claimant ignored Mrs Rogan as she called him back into the room and walked back to his seat. Mrs Rogan then followed him to his seat and remonstrated with the claimant. This incident was witnessed by other staff members and Mr Conal Duffy.

(4) Mr Duffy first spoke with Mrs Rogan and then sought advice from Accenture, before asking the claimant for an explanation of his behaviour. Mr Duffy told the claimant that he was suspended as a precautionary measure. A letter was sent to the claimant on 18 March 2009 confirming that he had been suspended on full pay pending a full investigation into possible misconduct and setting out the terms of the suspension. Mr Duffy later made a statement during the subsequent misconduct investigation that he had verbally informed the claimant that the reasons for his suspension were because his behaviour on the floor was unacceptable, his lack of respect for his manager could be seen as insubordination and that he was concerned about the claimant remaining on the floor and talking to customers. The claimant denied that he was ever given a reason for his suspension.

(5) Later the same day between 5.37pm and 7.23 pm one hundred and ninety nuisance calls were made to a BT 0800 number from an ex directory telephone line registered to the claimant’s mother’s house. The calls were referred to the respondent’s Security and Investigations Manager, Mr Ken Wilson, by the BT Nuisance Call Bureau.

(6) The claimant was invited to a second fact-finding interview on 9 April 2009 which was conducted by Miss Kerry Daggett to establish the facts leading up to the claimant’s suspension. The claimant was accompanied at this meeting by his trade union representative, Mrs Patricia Feenan. After the claimant outlined his version of the events on 13 March 2009, he was advised by Miss Daggett that she would write up her notes and gather together other witness statements. She then informed the claimant that before he left Mr Norman Bennett and Mr Wilson from BT security wished to speak with him. The claimant had not been given any prior notice of this meeting which he was told was to discuss the calls made from his mother’s house. The claimant was informed by the security personnel that the matter may be reported to the police and pursued as a criminal investigation and that he had the right to have a solicitor present during the course of their interview. The meeting did not in fact proceed as the claimant was unable to secure legal representation at short notice. On 28 April 2009 Ms Daggett wrote to the claimant to request a written explanation as to his alleged unprofessional conduct on 13 March 2009. The claimant provided a written response to this request but it appears that this was mislaid.

(7) Mr Duffy wrote to the claimant on 23 April 2009 advising him that following from the meeting of 9 April 2009 it was decided that no criminal proceedings would be pursued against the claimant and that the case had been passed to him to investigate internally. In that correspondence he asked the claimant to attend a third fact-finding interview on 28 April 2009.

(8) The claimant raised grievances against Mrs Rogan and Mr Duffy on 24 April 2009. The claimant’s grievance was investigated at fact-finding meeting on 15 May 2009 which was conducted by Mr Colm O’Brien of the BT Ireland Mediation Team. Mr Colm O’Brien wrote to the claimant on 2 and 5 June 2009 advising that his grievances against Ms Rogan and Mr Duffy had not been upheld. However Mr Colm O’Brien commented that he believed that Ms Rogan could have handled the situation on 13 March 2009 better and that he would be making appropriate recommendations. The claimant appealed on

19 June 2009 against the outcome of the grievances which was dismissed on 9 September 2009.

(9) The third fact-finding interview on 28 April 2009 was conducted by Mr Duffy accompanied by Ms Oli Husemeyer, a Human Resources Business Partner. The claimant was accompanied by Mrs Feenan. Prior to the meeting the claimant was provided with a Rascal report from the BT Nuisance Call Bureau containing a sample of the nuisance 190 calls. The claimant replied “no comment” in response to all questions asked concerning the nuisance calls. Following this meeting the claimant was asked to give a written explanation into the allegation that he made nuisance calls to the Northern Ireland Consumer Sales Team. The claimant stated in his written reply that he had no comment to make until he was furnished with any evidence of his involvement in the allegation.

(10) On 14 June 2009 Mr Duffy completed his misconduct investigation report into the allegations against the claimant. He concluded that the claimant had not given any explanation of what happened on the original call with the customer on 2 March 2009 or taken any opportunity to make any comment in relation to the allegations of nuisance calls made on 13 March 2009 to the sales centre. He was satisfied that the claimant behaved in an inappropriate manner on the sales floor on 13 March 2009. He recommended that the matters should be considered by his manager under the respondent’s gross misconduct procedure.

(11) This report was passed to Mr Mark Cowden, Head of Consumer Advice and Payphones, Mr Duffy’s peer. He wrote to the claimant on 16 July 2009 inviting him to a disciplinary hearing on 5 August 2009 to discuss allegations of gross misconduct, namely, the failure to provide a customer with the required customer service on 2 March 2009, unprofessional behaviour towards his manager on 13 March 2009 and making nuisance calls to the Northern Ireland Customer Service Team on 13 March 2009 following his precautionary suspension on the same date. The claimant was advised of his right to be accompanied by his trade union representative and he was provided with a copy of Mr Duffy’s report, his disciplinary history and his sickness absence history. Following receipt of this letter there was an exchange of emails between Mr Cowden and Mrs Feenan requesting further information for the claimant’s disciplinary hearing. The scheduled date for the disciplinary hearing was postponed at Mrs Feenan’s request until 13 August 2009. Mr Cowden was accompanied by Miss Lynn Connolly from Accenture and the claimant by Patricia Feenan.

(12) The claimant was given an opportunity to respond to the disciplinary charges which were put to him by Mr Cowden. The claimant questioned whether Mr Cowden was competent to deal with the disciplinary hearing as he was not Mr Duffy’s line manager. The claimant submitted that the customer complaint had been dealt with by his acting manager at the time who advised him that no further action would be taken. He suggested that this was an example of victimisation of him by Mrs Rogan. He thought it was sinister that after his suspension that Mrs Rogan asked one of the claimant’s colleagues to obtain his address and mobile phone number. The claimant had given his mother’s address. He denied that he had disconnected the customer’s call and suggested that the culture within his unit was to deal with customers at the first point of contact rather than escalate (pass on) the query to a manager as it would make no difference to the outcome for the customer. The claimant asserted that this was the first opportunity that he had been given to respond to the customer complaint allegation as he had been suspended. He denied having received the request for a written explanation which was why he had not responded.

(13) The claimant asserted that a charge of unprofessional behaviour towards his manager had not been properly investigated at a fact-finding interview as Ms Daggett had informed him that her fact-finding interview was concerned with the allegation that he “allegedly behaved in an unprofessional manner”. The claimant asserted that the documentation was deliberately incomplete as a written explanation supplied by him following his meeting with Ms Daggett was not included in the information used for the disciplinary hearing and that Ms Daggett’s notes did not reflect what was actually said during the course of the fact-finding interview. The claimant further asserted that his grievance that Ms Rogan acted towards him in an aggressive and hostile manner had been upheld.

(14) The claimant denied making nuisance calls and suggested that the calls had been fabricated by Angela Rogan to doctor end of year figures. He further suggested that the list of calls in Appendix 7 had been doctored and tampered with in order to incriminate him in the disciplinary proceedings. He highlighted that Appendix 7 contained in the documentation prepared for the disciplinary hearing was different from the document provided to him at the fact-finding with Mr Duffy in that the faxed letterhead had been omitted together with the paragraph at the bottom of the page which the claimant alleged stated that the information contained in the document should be used for the purpose of criminal proceedings only. Mr Cowden explained to the claimant at the hearing that he had cut and pasted the list of the phone calls into Appendix 7 of the report on the advice of Accenture.

(15) Following the disciplinary hearing Mr Cowden carried out further investigations. He wrote to the claimant on 26 August 2009 to notify him of this and that this could delay his decision. Mr Cowden spoke with Ms Donaghy on 20 August 2009. She contradicted the claimant’s contention that she had advised him that the customer complaint issue had been closed and said that she told him that the matter would be referred to Ms Rogan on her return to the office. She informed him that the claimant had completed complaints handling training a few weeks prior to the call and her view was that the claimant’s tone became inappropriate towards the customer. It was not possible to ascertain whether the call was terminated by the claimant or the customer. Mr Cowden had a conversation with the BT Technical Team and was advised it was not possible to determine who had terminated the customer call. His conclusion was that the claimant had failed to provide the customer with the required customer service on 2 March 2009 and that he failed to follow the correct customer complaints procedure by refusing to allow him to speak to a manager, by speaking to the customer in an appropriate manner and by terminating the call. While he accepted that advisors were encouraged to deal with calls without escalating, if the customer insists on speaking to a manager then calls should be transferred as per the complaint escalation procedure and that the claimant had repeatedly refused to do this despite requests from the customer.

(16) His further enquiries with Ms Daggett confirmed that the claimant had provided a written explanation which had been omitted “due to an oversight” by Ms Daggett who had mislaid her handwritten fact-finding interview notes. With the claimant’s permission he reviewed the correspondence relating to the claimant’s grievance. His conclusion was that key evidence was unavailable and therefore Mr Cowden decided to drop the charge of unprofessional behaviour towards a manager.

(17) Mr Cowden reviewed the evidence relating to the nuisance calls in the light of the submissions made to him by the claimant. He accepted reassurance from the BT Nuisance Call Bureau that the evidence could be used for an internal disciplinary matter even though a criminal case was not being pursued. He made enquiries as to what triggered the disciplinary investigation against the claimant and was informed that the calls came to light following an email sent on 14 March 2009 by a Saturday duty manager reporting that abandoned calls in the Sales Centre were higher than normal. Following this it was noticed that the abandoned calls level was considerably higher than would have been expected the previous evening. He took into account that the claimant had no explanation for the evidence from the Nuisance Call Bureau which showed that 190 calls were made to the Northern Ireland Customer Sales Team from an ex directory telephone number registered to his mother and that these calls took place on the same day that he was suspended from work relating to another incident. Mr Cowden concluded on a balance of probabilities based on the family connection that it was the claimant who made the calls into the Northern Ireland Customer Sales Team. The BT conduct standards state that “BT people must not make obscene, malicious, nuisance or indecent communications … or otherwise misuse BT equipment or systems”. Mr Cowden further concluded that the claimant’s actions impacted on overall service provided to other customers on the evening and added to the pressure of his colleagues on duty during that time.

(18) On completion of his investigations, Mr Cowden set out his findings and conclusions and his rationale. He also confirmed that he considered he was at the appropriate level to deal with the case as an independent manager. He accepted that there was no evidence to support that a conversation took place between the claimant and Mr Duffy when the claimant was suspended and he was unable to confirm whether the claimant was aware of the full reason for his suspension. He was able to confirm that no letter was sent to the claimant by Mr Duffy but that Ms Rogan had written to the claimant confirming the terms and conditions of the suspension.

(19) Mr Cowden’s decision was that the claimant had committed offences which amounted to gross misconduct for which the appropriate penalty was summary dismissal. He accepted that the claimant’s handling of the customer call on 2 March 2009 could be seen as a one off incident and on its own may not have warranted dismissal on the first occasion but stated that he could not ignore the nuisance calls made on 13 March 2009 following the claimant’s suspension from duty. Mr Cowden took into consideration the claimant’s length of service and his previous clear record, attendance and performance records but did not consider that this mitigated the claimant’s actions on this occasion. He considered that he had no alternative but to summarily dismiss the claimant as his actions had destroyed the fundamental trust between employer and employee. This decision was communicated to the claimant by letter dated 17 September 2009 enclosing a copy of the document referred to at para (18) above.

(20) The claimant gave notice of his intention to appeal against his decision on 22 September 2009. This was followed by an exchange of correspondence between Mrs Feenan, Mr Cowden and Ms Lynn Connelly of Accenture concerning the arrangements for the appeal and the provision to the claimant of documentation referred to in the rationale for the decision, including a full Rascal billing report relating to the nuisance calls.

(21) An appeal meeting was arranged for 4 February 2010 and was conducted by Mr Gareth McWilliams, Customer Services Director, accompanied by Ms Tracey Cuthbert of Accenture. The claimant was accompanied by Mrs Feenan. Mr McWilliams confirmed that the appeal would take the form of a full re-hearing of the evidence and that the claimant would be permitted to adduce new evidence, however he did not intend to explore further the charge of unprofessional behaviour as this had been dropped from the disciplinary case against the claimant. The claimant raised a number of points at the appeal hearing and complained about the delay that it had taken for the disciplinary process to be completed. He questioned whether the Rascal report could be used for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings when there had been no criminal investigation. He further questioned the validity of the report given that it initially contained only a sample of the 190 calls, and why following his meeting with Security Personnel on 9 April 2009, they had refused to meet with him subsequently. He asserted that a telephone number was inserted into the system during the investigation of the nuisance calls. He suggested that Mr Duffy had drawn the issue of nuisance calls to the attention of the Nuisance Calls Bureau on practically the last day of the financial year in order to achieve end of year targets. He queried whether there was potential benefit to Mr Duffy in his pay plan, annual performance review and targets. He suggested that Ms Rogan was also under target pressure and that is why she asked for the claimant’s address. He further suggested that Mr Cowden, had during the course of the disciplinary hearing, admitted to doctoring evidence by copying and pasting the telephone calls but that he did not refer to this in his written rationale for his decision and that evidence had been removed from the bundle prepared for the actual disciplinary case. He alleged that there was collusion within the respondent’s organisation which demonstrated an intention to dismiss him. He denied that he had made the calls, that he was present when the calls, if genuine, were made or that he lived at that address. At the tribunal Hearing the claimant, shifted his position in that he conceded that the calls were genuine but he was unable to give any explanation who may have made the calls. He contended, with regard to the customer complaint, that he had been treated differently from two other colleagues who had used profane language to a customer. He further suggested that Mr Cowden had manufactured Ms Donaghy’s statement and he could not recollect having completed any training into handling customer complaints.

(22) Mr McWilliams sought the agreement of the claimant that his task was to establish, firstly, whether other employees had been treated more favourably than the claimant in relation to handling customer calls; and in relation to the nuisance calls, he would have to establish whether they were genuine or had occurred as a result of a technical fault. If the calls were genuine and did emanate from the claimant’s mother’s address he would have to establish who made them and why. The claimant declined Mr McWilliams’ invitation to comment as to who else could have made the calls had genuinely been made.

(23) Following the appeal hearing Mr McWilliams carried out further investigations. He met with Ms Daggett on 10 February 2010 and with Mr Wilson, Mr Cowden and Mr Duffy on 12 February 2010 to discuss matters raised by the claimant. His enquiries showed that there was a record on the training database that the claimant had completed BT Advance Behaviours for Complaints Course on 17 February 2009. He also enquired into the two examples raised by the claimant of less favourable treatment of colleagues and received assurances from Accenture that each case had been dealt with consistently and appropriately in accordance with its own circumstances. Mr McWilliams disregarded the issue as to who terminated the call and ignored this aspect of the claimant’s treatment of the customer. However, he upheld Mr Cowden’s decision that the claimant did not deal with the customer in accordance with the correct procedure.

(24) Mr McWilliams requested an investigation of the calls made on 14 March 2009 for the sake of completeness and a Rascal billing report was furnished which indicated that the information had no relevance to the disciplinary proceedings against the claimant. He contacted the Nuisance Call Bureau concerning the use of data in view of the disclaimer on the billing records and was informed that there was no impediment to these being used in disciplinary cases. His enquiries with the Nuisance Call Bureau confirmed that the claimant’s mother’s telephone number was an output of the Rascal Billing Report rather than an input into the system. He had a conversation with Mr Alex Crossan, Managing Director for the BT Northern Ireland Network as to whether the calls could have been caused by a fault on the line or the equipment. These enquiries revealed that there was no fault having been recorded on the line.

(25) Accordingly Mr McWilliams concluded that the calls were real and not made as a result of any fault or defect in BT’s equipment or network and that BT could safely use this information internally in disciplinary cases. In the absence of any explanation from the claimant as to who could have made the calls, he agreed with Mr Cowden’s conclusion on a balance of probabilities that the calls had been made by the claimant. He did not find plausible the claimant’s suggestion that Mr Duffy had fabricated the whole episode to create the means to have the claimant dismissed as this would involve widespread collusion across BT organisation at different levels. At the Hearing Mr McWilliams accepted that the impact of the nuisance calls on customer service was minimal. However he contended that the impact on the abandoned call figure for the day was a significant indicator of adverse performance and therefore potentially a source of embarrassment to managers and further could cause frustration on the part of the claimant’s sales colleagues, who would view the disconnected calls as preventing them from dealing with genuine calls and potentially impacting on their ability to earn sales bonuses.

(26) Mr McWilliams wrote to the claimant enclosing his report, to notify him that his appeal against the decision summarily to dismiss him was rejected. The claimant lodged his originating claim with the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal in which he raised complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination on the grounds of his sex, race and religious belief/political opinion. He later withdrew his claims of unlawful discrimination.

The Law

3. An employee has a right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer and it is for the employer to establish the reason for the dismissal. A dismissal is potentially fair if the employer can establish that the reason for the dismissal relates to the conduct of the employee.

4. Where the employer has shown that the reason for the dismissal is potentially fair, the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair having regard to the reasons shown by the employer depends on whether in the circumstances including the size in administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as the sufficient reason for dismissing the employee and shall be determined in accordance with equity in the substantial merits of the case.

5. In Rogan v South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (2009) NICA 47 the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland stated at paragraph 2: “It is for the employer to establish the belief in the particular misconduct. The tribunal must then consider whether the employer had reasonable grounds upon which to sustain the belief and thirdly whether the employer had carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances. The tribunal must also of course consider whether the misconduct was a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”. In paragraph 26 the judgement the Court of Appeal makes it clear that the weight to be given to the evidence is for the disciplinary panel and not for the tribunal.

Conclusions

6. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent has shown in this case that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was misconduct and that the reason is one of the statutory reasons that can render a dismissal fair.

7. The tribunal therefore turns to the issue as whether in all the circumstances the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating this as sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant. The tribunal disagreed with the submission made on behalf of the claimant that the respondent failed to carry out any reasonable investigation. It is clear that prior to the disciplinary charges, the respondent conducted fact-finding interviews at which the claimant was given the opportunity to put forward his case and subsequent to these meetings was invited to give his written statement. It is clear that Mr Cowden conducted further investigations into matters raised by the claimant at the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal considers that Mr McWilliams addressed further issues raised by the claimant, including matters which the claimant identified as shortcomings in the process leading to Mr Cowden’s decision. Mr McWilliams carried out his own further investigations subsequent to the appeal hearing before reaching his decision to reject the appeal.

The Handling of the Customer Complaint

8. The tribunal is satisfied that the evidence available to the respondent during the disciplinary process indicates that the claimant did repeatedly refuse requests by the customer to refer the matter to his line manager and that the tone adopted by the claimant was inappropriate. The tribunal is satisfied that the evidence did not support Mr Cowden’s conclusion that the claimant had terminated the telephone calls but that the other elements of this allegation where satisfied. The tribunal considered that this defect was remedied by Mr McWilliams on the appeal as he took no account of this at the appeal stage. However he upheld the other aspects of this disciplinary charge after establishing that the claimant had received relevant training. The tribunal also took into account the view of both Mr Cowden and Mr McWilliams was that the manner in which the claimant handled the telephone call in itself would not have warranted summary dismissal, however this was considered in conjunction with the disciplinary charges concerning the nuisance calls.

The Nuisance Calls

9. The tribunal is satisfied that on evidence available to the respondent at both stages of the disciplinary process it was within the band of reasonable responses to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant had made the nuisance calls on 13 March 2009. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation on this regard which led to the formation of a reasonable belief that the claimant had made the calls. The tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Cowden that in reaching his conclusion he was influenced by the fact that the claimant had, during the fact finding interview made no comment answers to Mr Duffy and by the following matters:

a. The calls where made on the same day that the claimant had been suspended by his line manager.

b. The calls where made from the claimant’s mother’s house.

c. The claimant’s mother’s telephone number, which is ex-directory, was revealed by the Rascal report and was not inputted by Security Personnel.

d. The investigation showed that the nuisance calls were made by a person rather than being caused by a fault on the line or equipment.

e. Although the claimant denied during the disciplinary process that he made the calls and doubted that his mother made the calls. He consistently maintained until the hearing of these matters that the calls were a fabrication and a device to dismiss him.

10. The tribunal was not impressed by the submission on behalf of the claimant that the impact of the calls was trivial and as such should not have been treated as gross misconduct by the respondent. During his evidence the claimant accepted that it would be unacceptable for an employee of the respondent to make nuisance calls and the tribunal is satisfied in the circumstances that this lead to a breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent. The tribunal considers that the penalty of summary dismissal did fall within the band of reasonable responses open to the respondent in the circumstances of this particular case.

11. The tribunal therefore does not find the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal to be well founded and dismisses the claimant’s claim in its entirety.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 29 November 2010 to 1 December 2010, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: