UNFAIR DISMISSAL VICTORY

RMT helpline 0800 376 3706 :: may 2015 :: RMTnews 23 LEGAL R MT has successfully won an unfair dismissal claim with the judge also awarding reinstatement with effect from April 27 2015. Wijesinghe Perera worked for the East Coast Main Line Company from October 1983 to February 2014, employed for over 30 years as an electrical engineer. He was considered a model employee and his positive contribution was commended in an article in 2008 in the company’s magazine where his dedication was celebrated. In the article, Mr Perera was recorded as saying: “I live for my work and, if I didn’t think I’d done it properly, I couldn’t hold my head up high”. On February 26 2014 Mr Perera was working on the night shift and started at 6pm and was to complete his shift at 6am. He took his lunch break at approximately midnight in the mess room. There were a number of colleagues that started their shift at 9pm who were also in the mess room, some of whom were sitting and talking. The television in the mess room was on showing a film. Mr Perera was tired and wanted to watch the news so he got up and changed the channel. One of his colleagues objected stating that they were watching what was on. Mr Perera informed them that he had been on shift since 6pm and just wanted to watch the news. His colleague then got up and turned the channel back. In frustration at his colleague’s action, Mr Perera went back over to the TV and hit the off button with force, unfortunately as it was a flat screen TV, it cracked. Mr Perera reported the matter straight away, apologised, and offered to pay for the damage. He had over 30 years’ service and a clean employment record. Mr Perera was shamelessly dismissed by the company for gross misconduct. The only reason given by the dismissing officer was that he could not be sure the matter would not reoccur. Mr Perera argued before the Employment Tribunal that the company had clearly failed to take into account or give sufficient weight to the fact that there had been no previous incidents in over 30 years of service and Mr Perera’s own assurances in the appeal hearing that he would never do such an act again. The company’s disciplinary policy states that the procedure was not to be viewed, primarily, as a means of imposing sanctions but intended to emphasis and encourage improvements in the conduct of employees. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Perera had been unfairly dismissed. The Employment Judge who heard Mr Perera’s case ordered that he was to be reinstated to his role. Counsel representing Mr Perera at the hearing was Kate Annand of Doughty Street Chambers. Zillur Rahman of Thompsons Solicitors, who represented Mr Perera, said that the decision by the Tribunal had ensured that reason, logic and ultimately justice, has prevailed. 2It is, in my opinion inconceivable to think that the unfortunate act which Mr Perera committed, for which he profusely apologised for, could be a reason to dismiss and thereby do away with more than 30 years’ worth of unblemished service, dedication and loyalty,” he said. Mr Perera thanked the union and its solicitors, particularly Zillur Rahman and Ben McBride, for “all the hard work and determination” staff had shown him over the months. UNFAIR DISMISSAL VICTORY