Electrician's claim for wrongful dismissal against long-term friend dismissed

Tuesday 02 January 2018

An electrician who alleged his friend of 20 years had wrongfully dismissed him, has had his case rejected by the Employment Tribunal.

Simon Irons had been working for Gordon Electrical Services Limited for ten years when he resigned without notice in April 2017, alleging that his boss and friend, Ian Gordon, had breached their contract.

Mr Irons returned to work in January 2016 following more than six months of sick leave due to health difficulties.

Despite initial reservations, Mr Gordons allowed him to return. Mr Irons was still in acute pain, however, so Mr Gordon agreed he could return on "light duties." The tribunal – chaired by Hilary Griffin sitting with John Noel and Sue Cuming – noted that Mr Gordon went to “significant lengths” to “cherry pick” appropriate jobs which were “less physically demanding."

But Mr Irons was "relatively frequently unable to work" due to his pain. He would notify Mr Gordon, but often did so late on the evening before, which led to planning difficulties.

The good relationship between the two men turned sour following a pay dispute.

Pictured: Holiday pay issues led to a heated dispute between Mr Irons and his employer of 10 years and friend of 20, Mr Gordon.

Mr Irons had wrongly been asked to refund holiday pay received while on sick leave, and was also denied holiday pay in November. He said that he had been relentlessly and incessantly pursued to pay back the money. But evidence found that this was not the case – after its first mention, the issue was not discussed for six months.

Following a “heated discussion” between all parties and advice from the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service (JACS), Mr Gordon learned that Mr Irons was entitled to his holiday pay, and arranged for the payment to be made immediately. 

Mr Irons was later signed off work by his doctor. In December 2016, he sent a formal letter of grievance to his boss, arguing that he was in a “completely vulnerable and almost untenable position due to the complete lack of sincerity, compassion and professionalism shown by you and your partners.”

He concluded that he was "deeply saddened that you are prepared to let our otherwise fantastic relationship be ruined,” adding that the lack of communication from Mr Gordon made him feel like he was "merely another employee of no significant relevance." 

After receiving the letter, Mr Gordon took further advice from JACS and agreed to a formal grievance process, despite feeling it was likely to “worsen relations."

A member of his management team was appointed to deal with the process, and it was concluded following a meeting that “poor communication between both parties was at the root of this grievance." They added that Mr Irons had made significant efforts to help Mr Gordon back to work.

Pictured: The Employment Tribunal is located on the first floor of International House on the Parade.

In April 2017, Mr Irons then resigned. He said that there was “no longer being any mutual respect to enable (him) to feel secure in his working environment." He claimed that this had stemmed from a chain of events, which he felt amounted to a breach of contract.

He said he was upset by comments contained in the grievance reports, and further alleged that Mr Gordon had told him he was a “hindrance” to the company and that the grievance procedure was “unnecessary and insensitive." 

In their judgment, the Tribunal noted they were "particularly saddened to see the unfortunate and entirely avoidable deterioration of relations between the Claimant and his former employer.” 

“There is no doubt that this was previously a good working relationship and friendship and that a combination of ignorance of the law and miscommunication led to a rupturing of relations. It was, in the Tribunal’s view, a salutary lesson that, wherever possible, employees seek to exhaust informal grievance procedures before resorting to the formal processes."

The Tribunal concluded that Mr Gordon's initial failure to pay holiday pay was a breach of contract, but was not likely “to destroy or seriously undermine the relationship of trust and confidence between the Claimant and the Respondent."  

They added that words used in the grievance reports “may have been insensitive” out of context, but when taken within the whole paragraph “convey an entirely different message to that upon which the Claimant chose to focus.”

Pictured: The Employment Tribunal considered that Mr Irons hadn't been wrongfully dismissed but instead resigned from his position.

"It was clear that the Claimant became so angry and bitter about what he perceived to gross unfairness that he could no longer see the bigger picture.  It was abundantly clear to the Tribunal that, throughout the grievance process, the Respondent’s objective was to try to explain its position to the Claimant, bring the Claimant back to work as soon as possible and for the parties to move on."

The Tribunal said that Mr Gordon's overall conduct was "that of a conscientious employer who was trying its best to support a long-serving and loyal employee who had suddenly found himself to be suffering from a severe and physically debilitating condition."

They concluded that there were no repudiatory breaches in response to which the Claimant could resign and that he consequently had not been constructively dismissed and dismissed his claim for unfair dismissal. Regarding the unfair dismissal claim, they concluded he had resigned from his position, and so rejected that claim as well.