The company at the centre of this dismissal case was engaged in the production of roof trusses for timber frame houses.
The company learned in mid 2005 that one of its employees was setting up his own business for the manufacture of roof trusses for brick built houses.
The company, his employer, was primarily involved in roof trusses for timber built houses and trusses for brick built houses accounted for only a small portion of business.
The employee had started employment with the company in 1995 and later became a team leader.
On hearing of the employee’s plan to set up a new business, the company had a number of informal meetings with him about his status with the company. The employee was hesitant to discuss his new enterprise but did not deny his involvement in it.
Senior managers at the company met with the employee on 16th January 2006 and advised him that his proposed enterprise placed him in a conflict of interest situation in relation to the company. Also as a team leader he had access to confidential information that compromised the welfare of the company.
By summer 2006 the employee had acquired equipment and property to establish the business and was advertising in the local media.
Another formal meeting took place on 18th July 2006 to address the situation.
It was hoped an exit plan could be agreed with the employee.
The employee stated that he had no intention of leaving his employment with the company.
The company terminated his employment on 19th July 2006.
The employee was advised that he could appeal this decision to dismiss him.
The employee took his claim to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that;
- The claimant consistently refused to give an explanation to the company on the nature and substance of his emerging roof trusses business
- The company was understandably concerned at the possible impact such an enterprise would have on its own operations
- That concern was increased due to the claimant’s position with the company and his access to sensitive confidential information
- A more open approach was needed by the claimant in addressing his employers concerns
- There was a possible conflict of interest between the work undertaken by the company and the enterprise established by the claimant
- Due to the lack of openness and engagement on this topic the company could not be expected to retain the claimant as an employee
- Consequently the company was justified in their decision to dismiss the claimant
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997-2001 failed.
Case: McCullagh v IJM Timber Engineering Ltd, Employment Appeals Tribunal, UD908/2006, MN462/2007, 2007
How Can We Help You?
We provide advice and guidance on the proper procedure for conducting Investigations, Hearings and Appeals or we can lead and conduct investigations, hearings and appeals where you may require external, independent, expertise. Click also on Disciplinary/Dismissal Procedures and Bullying Procedures for more information.