Worker who headbutted colleague over Irish rebel songs loses unfair dismissal claim

Seán McCárthaigh

A worker who physically assaulted a colleague after being provoked by the playing of Irish rebel songs and being called “an English bastard” has lost his case for unfair dismissal.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Breffni Air Ireland Unlimited had acted within the band of reasonable responses in dismissing the general operative, Timothy Seaton, on grounds of gross misconduct.

The company, which manufactures stainless steel ductwork at a plant in Kilnaleck, Co Cavan, maintained it had acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances of the case.

The company’s production manager, Gary Johnston, who witnessed the incident involving Mr Seaton on March 7th, 2022, said the complainant had been agitated that day as he had been provoked by his colleague.

He said the pair started fighting in a bay area with Mr Seaton headbutting his colleague followed by a slap to the head.

Mr Johnston said he separated both men and took the decision to suspend Mr Seaton on full pay.

The WRC heard that the complainant was shown CCTV footage of the incident at an investigation meeting and claimed his colleague was being aggressive towards him and he had been provoked by the playing of rebel music and being called “an English bastard.”

Mr Johnston said it was the first time he had heard this and denied that the remarks had been reported to him several months previously by Mr Seaton.

He said the other worker, who was also dismissed following a separate disciplinary process, had denied using such words but had admitted playing rebel music.

The company’s director of operations, David O’Doherty, who conducted a disciplinary hearing said Mr Seaton had admitted the assault on his colleague and stated: “I know that I have done wrong. I don’t want to lose my job. I believe that this is a situation that should have been dealt with previously.”

Mr O’Doherty gave evidence that that dismissal was the most appropriate sanction as he considered the complainant’s actions had amounted to gross misconduct.

Mr O’Doherty said he had also considered the risk of another assault in a workshop where up to 40 staff were working with power tools and Stanley knives.

He also said he had considered provocation as a defence but stated the matter was addressed by the dismissal of the other worker who had also been involved in other incidents.

Mr O’Doherty noted that Mr Seaton was remorseful and emotional during the disciplinary hearing.

Under cross-examination he said the complainant could have chosen to report the provocation to his line manager but instead he had “snapped.”

Mr O’Doherty confirmed he had also considered lesser sanctions than dismissal.

The WRC heard the fact that Mr O’Doherty had also played a role in the investigation as well as the disciplinary process was considered “a small flaw” and a “wrinkle.”

The company’s then HR manager, Lorraine Day, who heard an appeal, said she had followed the employee handbook in upholding the decision to dismiss the complainant.

However, Mr Seaton claimed there were several fundamental flaws in the investigation and disciplinary processes used which made his dismissal after just over two years in the job “unsafe and unfair.”

He claimed his colleague had slammed his hammer near him and had been “mouthing” at him.

Mr Seaton said he had felt totally threatened after being called “a f**king English bastard.” (Another witness statement recorded him being called “an English bastard.”)

Mr Seaton claimed he had previously told his line manager about him and others being subjected to derogatory remarks and denied headbutting his colleague but accepted he had not made a written complaint.

He added: “If I could turn the clock back, I would never have put myself in that situation.”

Mr Seaton recalled he was extremely upset as it was the only time he had ever experienced “this bigotry behaviour.”

He also complained that his appeal was heard by a person who was junior to Mr O’Doherty.

In her ruling WRC adjudication officer, Moya de Paor, said she did not accept Mr Seaton’s evidence that he had just raised his arm to his colleague and noted he had not disputed that a serious physical assault had taken place which had been initiated by him.

Ms de Paor noted that the company’s employee handbook, a copy of which had been given to Mr Seaton in June 2020, cited “dangerous behaviour, fighting or physical assault” as examples of gross misconduct.

Notwithstanding some procedural shortcomings, she said the decision to dismiss Mr Seaton was within the “band of reasonable responses” test.

Ms de Paor acknowledged that Mr O’Doherty’s impartiality could be open to question given that he played a role more than just being an observer in the investigation process.

She also stated that there was no investigation report by Mr Johnston, while the appeal process should have been chaired by someone with greater seniority than Mr O’Doherty.

Ms de Paor said she appreciated the difficulties and impact of the discriminatory remarks regarding his nationality felt by Mr Seaton as well as the playing of Irish rebel music.

However, she said his evidence about having raised the issue previously was “inconsistent and unconvincing.”