The High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Dublin City Council employee who refused to attend a specialist psychiatric assessment, finding that the council acted reasonably in requiring the assessment before considering his return to work or investigating his workplace complaints.
Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 31 July 2018 in an appeal from a Circuit Court order of 20 July 2017. That court had dismissed the employee’s appeal from an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision, which had itself followed a Rights Commissioner decision. The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the dismissal was fair.
The employee had complained in 2012 that colleagues were psychologically intimidating him. He identified nine people. The council did not investigate the complaint at that stage, saying it first needed to establish whether he was fit to work and take part in what could be a stressful inquiry. The employee maintained that the council should have followed its bullying complaint procedures and that his fitness came under scrutiny instead of his allegations.
Three occupational health doctors who assessed him for the council concluded that he was unfit for work pending specialist evaluation. The employee disputed their opinions and refused several requests to see a consultant psychiatrist, including an appointment arranged at the council’s expense. The council dismissed him in March 2014 for continuing to refuse what it regarded as a reasonable instruction. It paid four weeks’ wages in lieu of notice.
The judge accepted that the council had not followed the procedures set out in its Code of Practice or its own Dignity at Work Policy for investigating the complaints. He nevertheless found it reasonable to defer an investigation until the employee’s fitness to work and participate had been assessed, given the doctors’ opinions and the circumstances described in the judgment. The judge also found there was no evidence supporting the employee’s claim that his dismissal was part of a conspiracy or a plan to reduce staff.
The court concluded that the council was entitled to require the assessment and could not accept the employee back at work while he continued to refuse it. It therefore found the dismissal fair. The judgment also rejected the employee’s arguments under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and equality legislation. It did not determine whether the underlying bullying complaints were true; they had not been investigated.