A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a senior Dublin Airport executive whose 25-year career came to an end when he was dismissed for gross misconduct after being arrested over allegations of theft from terminal shops.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has rejected a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against DAA, which runs the airport, by Gerard Carey, an airside operations manager, dismissed in August 2024.
The airport operator’s case to the WRC, presented by Tina Ochelle Deasy of Ibec, was that Mr Carey – an airport employee since 1998 – was “arrested for theft from retailers in the airport complex” and dismissed on foot of a “comprehensive” process of investigation, disciplinary hearing and appeal.
The case presented by Mr Carey and his trade union was that he had “admitted that he had been arrested for alleged theft” on June 29th, 2023, WRC adjudicator Michael McEntee noted.
A neuropsychologist’s view on Donald Trump: We’re seeing the impact of power on the human brain
NFL’s €10m shakedown of Ireland shows they’re the best-dressed welfare spongers in the world
Unelected Musk holds court in Trump’s Oval Office as he defends efficiency drive
Leopardstown racecourse earmarked for 1,000 social and affordable homes
He recorded that Mr Carey “was not convicted in the ordinary courts of the theft charges brought by the gardaí”.
DAA’s position was that airport staff with airside responsibilities “had to be of the highest levels of trust and must completely enjoy full management confidence”, the tribunal noted.
A senior manager, Mr D, was the deciding officer at a disciplinary hearing in August 2023. Central to the findings of the disciplinary investigation was the fact that Mr Carey was a “senior executive in an airside safety and highly regulated operational role”, the WRC heard.
His evidence to the WRC was that it was “not an easy decision to dismiss such a senior employee of long service” but that he felt there were “no realistic alternatives”.
Mr D had been asked about the prospect of demoting Mr Carey to an alternative position – with a suggestion put to him that Mr Carey could have been demoted to working as a car park attendant “well off the airport site”.
The witness reiterated the issue of trust and confidence, said that no such vacancies were available at the time, and added that it would be “completely inappropriate” to have someone as senior as Mr Carey demoted to such a role.
Vivian Cullen of trade union Siptu, appearing for Mr Carey, submitted medical evidence which indicated his client “had been suffering from severe mental issues relating to changes in life [and] family circumstances and family illnesses”.
Mr Cullen argued that the managers involved in the disciplinary process gave “no proper regard” to his client’s mental state and that the decision of Ms M following the appeal hearing last October, was “a rubber-stamping” of the August 2024 decision of the disciplinary officer.
“Her actions were blatantly, legally, prejudicial,” Mr Cullen submitted.
In terms of workplace-provided supports for an employee in his client’s circumstances, Mr Cullen submitted that what had been available to Mr Carey was “virtually non-existent” because taking such support was seen as “career suicide”.
The trade union contended that DAA had failed in its duty of care to the worker.
In his decision on the case, Mr McEntee wrote that there was no doubt that Mr Carey “had experienced quite a lot of severe external personal pressures”. However, he noted that Ms M, the company appeals officer, had been “forthright in her recollections that she had carefully considered all the evidence, including the medical factors”.
He added that Ms M “presented as a competent senior manager well capable of forming an independent view, irrespective of [the disciplinary officer] Mr D’s position”.
“In the final analysis, the rules of natural justice were observed throughout. Only the respondents have the expertise and experience to evaluate these trust and safety confidence issues in a major airport setting,” the adjudicator wrote.
“A case for unfair dismissal has not been made out. The complaint fails,” Mr McEntee wrote.
He also dismissed a secondary claim by Mr Carey under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 seeking statutory notice pay denied to him due to the gross misconduct findings.
