December 21st 2015

Local man’s compensation is doubled after former employer loses appeal: What a glorious headline!

“A local man was last week awarded €51.000 after his former employer, Rentokil Initial Ltd, lost its appeal against an Employment Appeals Tribunal verdict that he’d been constructively dismissed from the company in 2006.

The former employee, P.J.Walsh of Ballymahon, Co. Longford, is well known in the locality. Mr Walsh started work as a service technician with Rentokil in September 2004 but he resigned at the end of October 2006 because he felt his position had become untenable. He had raised a number of concerns with the company over matters including his workload and the suitability of his van’s interior for transporting insecticides and rodenticides.

After leaving the company he brought a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which awarded him €25.000 on the basis that he’d been constructively dismissed.

Rentokil Initial Ltd appealed this verdict, and the appeal was heard by Judge Anthony Kennedy at a sitting of the Circuit Court in Athlone on Wednesday last. Giving evidence, Mr Walsh stated that his job involved dealing with infestations of rodents and insects. He worked in the company’s North West region, based in Athlone, and his role initially involved travel to counties Leitrim, Roscommon, Westmeath, Longford, Cavan, and sometimes Monaghan.

He stated that in February 2005 he made representations to his branch manager Ronan McLoughlin, because he felt the region in which he was working had been neglected due to staff shortages, and this was resulting in customer dissatisfaction. These issues were dealt with by Mr McLoughlin who left the company that year.

On January 6^th 2006, Ms Aisling Brill became the branch manager and Mr Walsh wrote to her four days later to suggest the establishment of an informal alliance of staff members. At that stage he outlined a number of issues of concern including, a health and safety matter, remuneration, travel time and pension entitlements. Ms Brill acknowledged the letter and said she looked forward to discussing these issues with him.

The suggested alliance of staff members was ‘an olive branch’ offered to Ms Brill but the suggestion wasn’t taken on board, Mr Walsh said.

In February of 2006 he wrote directly to an area manager of the company in the UK, as he didn’t feel his concerns would be dealt with to his satisfaction by the local management. He received a response which stated that he should raise the matters with Ms Brill.

After receiving a copy of the letter which went to the UK, Ms Brill replied in March 2006. Between March and June of that year she implemented changes in a number of areas which Mr Walsh had highlighted. These included conditions at the company’s store, staff training, and the provision of protective clothing and equipment.

A health and safety audit of Mr Walsh’s van was carried out in July and it found that the interior of the van required safety improvements.

As the year progressed, Mr Walsh said, his workload increased significantly. The court was told that in January 2006 he had to service 213 premises. By June this had increased to 292 and, as a result, he felt he could no longer maintain an acceptable standard of performance. “It made the job totally impossible”, he said.

On August 21 he again wrote to Ms Brill. He stated that he had been keeping up with his workload by starting early, finishing late and taking little or no time for lunch, but he wasn’t prepared to continue doing this any longer. Ms Brill responded by stating that, since Mr Walsh felt stressed, she would arrange for him to be seen by a company doctor.

A few days later, he attended the Rentokil office to fill out paperwork. He said he was admonished by Ms Brill, who told him he shouldn’t attend the office without prior arrangement. Mr Walsh said he was “hurt and embarrassed” by the admonishment.

When he was seen by the company doctor in September, it was found that he was suffering from stress.

His resignation from the company was on October 31 2006. Despite completing courses in computers, book keeping, English for business and horticulture, he said he had not found employment since his job with Rentokil.

He told the court that, since he couldn’t find work in this country, he lined up an interview on March 14 next for a job teaching English to Spanish students.

He was cross examined by Desmond Dockery, barrister for Rentokil, who said the company had responded in a reasonable manner to the concerns which had been raised. Mr Dockery said the company had procedures in place if staff members had a grievance.

These had not been followed by Mr Walsh.

He stated that, after Mr Walsh’s letter of August 21, Rentokil had arranged to provide assistance with his workload. As a result the resignation was premature, Mr Dockery said.

This was denied by Mr Walsh, who said “I was falling further and further behind in my work. I was short-changing the customer and I wasn’t prepared to continue doing that.” When called to give evidence Ms Brill said she had always been available to discuss matters with Mr Walsh and she didn’t have any problem with his “perfectly acceptable” level of performance in the job.

She denied that the demands which were placed on him were excessive and stated that his workload was not greater than any of the other 11 technicians employed by Rentokil in the North West area.

“I felt I dealt with every concern reasonably and quickly” she said.

During his closing submission, Mr Dockery read out the definition of constructive dismissal. He argued that Mr Walsh’s resignation was premature, stating that an employee with a grievance must act reasonably and resignation should not be a first option.

Mr Walsh’s barrister, Gerard Groarke, who was instructed by Tormey and Co solicitors, Athlone, admitted his client had not followed Rentokil’s grievance procedures to the letter. However, he said Mr Walsh had set out his difficulties in detail to the company. Some of these were dealt with satisfactorily, but chief among them was the increased workload which had caused him stress.

When delivering his ruling, Judge Anthony Kennedy said Mr Walsh struck him as “a rather scrupulous person who would feel that if he wasn’t performing at 100% something was wrong”.

The judge said it seemed that the company’s management considered Mr Walsh “a bit of a crank,” and he didn’t believe that if the company’s had been followed correctly there would have been adequate redress.

“As a result I find it was reasonable for him to resign and claim constructive dismissal. He was the very opposite of a slacker-he was a very zealous employee, perhaps even a workaholic”, said the judge.

He increased the sum awarded to Mr Walsh to the maximum payable, which was 104 weeks’ gross pay. This amounted to €51,142.

Costs were also awarded to Mr Walsh.”

A workaholic!

Quite right, Judge Kennedy!

Some performance from the Prodigal! Well, there it is.