The High Court found that Advance Tyre Company Limited’s disciplinary inquiry into Seamus Hartnett breached fair procedures, but refused his application for an injunction to set aside his dismissal or reinstate him to receive his salary.
Mr Justice Ryan said Hartnett had a strong case that his dismissal was unlawful because the inquiry relied on a statement from Sven Wehrmeyer, the only witness to the alleged misconduct, without giving Hartnett’s representative a satisfactory opportunity to cross-examine him. The court did not decide whether a video link or another arrangement would have been sufficient. It said there was no way to avoid some form of cross-examination in the circumstances.
Hartnett, who had been Head of Fleet Truck Sales, was dismissed with effect from 4 October 2013 after an investigation and appeal. The allegations arose from a meeting with Wehrmeyer, an employee of supplier Dikabo, at Hayfield Manor Hotel in Cork on 5 August. The company said Hartnett sought unauthorised commission payments and disclosed confidential tyre prices. Hartnett accepted that the meeting took place but denied wrongdoing and gave an innocent explanation.
At the disciplinary hearing on 1 October, Hartnett’s solicitor asked to cross-examine Wehrmeyer. The company said he was available by telephone, but the solicitor declined to speak with him by phone. The inquiry preferred Wehrmeyer’s written account, found Hartnett guilty of the charges and decided dismissal was appropriate. A company director later upheld the dismissal on appeal.
The balance-of-convenience test nevertheless defeated Hartnett’s application. At the appeal, his solicitor had said Wehrmeyer provided Hartnett with a “gratuity” at the meeting. Hartnett and his solicitor declined to give details, describing it as a monetary payment. In an affidavit to the court, Hartnett said he later found €1,500 in an envelope passed to him at the hotel, and said he had neither requested nor expected it.
The judge said that if Hartnett’s account was true, accepting the money and not reporting it breached his duties to the company and its code of conduct. If it was untrue, it damaged his credibility. The judge concluded that any remaining trust between Hartnett and the company could not be regarded as intact.
The ruling concerned an application for an injunction, not a full hearing of the underlying dispute. Although Hartnett satisfied the requirement to show a strong case, he failed the separate balance-of-convenience requirement and was therefore not entitled to the injunction.