A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a senior Dublin Airport executive whose 25-year career came to an abrupt end. The dismissal was due to gross misconduct after the executive was arrested over allegations of theft from terminal shops.

The Workplace Relations Commission’s Ruling

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has rejected a complaint filed under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against DAA, the body that operates Dublin Airport. The complainant was Gerard Carey, an airside operations manager who was dismissed in August 2024.

DAA’s legal representation, Tina Ochelle Deasy of Ibec, argued that Mr. Carey, an employee since 1998, was arrested for theft from airport retailers. The company maintained that Mr. Carey was dismissed after a thorough investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal process.

Mr. Carey’s and His Union’s Arguments

However, Mr. Carey and his trade union, Siptu, contended that he had admitted to being arrested for alleged theft on June 29, 2023. It was noted that he was not convicted in the regular courts for the theft charges.

DAA argued that airside staff must be of the highest trust level and completely enjoy management confidence due to the critical nature of their roles. A senior manager, Mr. D, was the deciding officer at the disciplinary hearing in August 2023.

Mr. D explained that demoting Mr. Carey to a lesser role, such as a car park attendant, would be inappropriate and demotivating given his senior executive position.

Mental Health and Workplace Support

The trade union, represented by Vivian Cullen, submitted medical evidence indicating that Mr. Carey had been suffering from severe mental health issues due to changes in life circumstances and family illnesses.

Mr. Cullen argued that the management team failed to give appropriate consideration to Mr. Carey’s mental state and that the dismissal decision was a “rubber-stamping” of the original disciplinary officer’s verdict. He maintained that Mr. Carey had virtually no access to workplace support due to the fear of career repercussions.

The union contended that DAA had failed in its duty of care toward the employee.

The Tribunal’s Decision

WRC adjudicator Michael McEntee acknowledged that Mr. Carey had experienced significant personal pressures. Nevertheless, he stated that Ms. M, the company appeals officer, had carefully weighed all the evidence, including the medical factors.

Mr. McEntee also noted that Ms. M, as a competent and experienced senior manager, was capable of forming an independent judgment. He emphasized that the rules of natural justice were maintained throughout the process.

Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and ruled that the complaint failed. He also rejected Mr. Carey’s secondary claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 regarding the denial of statutory notice pay.

Conclusion

This case highlights the challenges faced by large organizations in balancing employee well-being with the need to maintain high standards of trust and safety, especially in critical industries like aviation. The decision underscores the importance of a thorough and fair disciplinary process, even when mental health issues are involved.

The acknowledged pressures and health concerns of Mr. Carey raise significant questions about the level of support provided to employees in high-stress environments and the need for more robust mental health programs in workplace settings.