A postman who had an assault conviction reduced to a probation order on appeal has now secured €5,000 in compensation for being sacked by An Post, which found he had brought the service "into disrepute".
The Workplace Relations Commission has ordered the national postal service to pay Paul Dudgeon the sum after upholding his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
In a summary account included with her decision on the case, a WRC adjudicator recorded that Mr Dudgeon had "a dispute with his former partner in January 2020" which led to his ex making a complaint of theft and assault to An Garda Siochána.
Mr Dudgeon was convicted of theft and assault offences in a District Court on 16 December 2020 and brought a Circuit Court appeal the following spring, the tribunal noted.
The assault charge was "dealt with under the Probation Act following the payment of a total of €6,000 by the complainant," with the Circuit Court allowing his appeal on the theft.
However, An Post was made aware of a number of social media posts, which Mr Dudgeon called "malicious" and "entirely false".
Mr Dudgeon said he and his partner were "both very drunk" on the night of 14 January 2020, and admitted to the WRC that he "pushed her and she fell to the ground".
Mr Dudgeon said he "regretted the incident" and was "sorry that it happened" - claiming that he did not get a "fair hearing" at the District Court and had been made a "victim of the courts system".
He submitted that the Circuit Court quashed the theft conviction and reduced the assault conviction to a probation order under Section 1 (1) of the Probation Act. He said that he had to abstain from drinking alcohol for six months and was to have no further contact with his ex-partner.
Mr Dudgeon said that he had no conviction of theft and no previous convictions and there was no reputational damage to An Post.
In his direct evidence, Mr Dudgeon said that he "paid the money and moved on with his life" and believed he had "a clean record". He said the outcome was not enough to "fire someone".
Cathal McGreal BL, appearing for An Post, put it to Mr Dudgeon in cross-examination that he had "pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court to the assault charge" in order for the Probation Act to be applied.
Mr Dudgeon replied that he was "not aware of that" and "did not remember that".
Mr McGreal submitted that Mr Dudgeon was not sacked because of his "out of work conduct" but because of the "manner of [his] engagement" with his employer about it.
"Throughout the internal process, the complainant gave various differing accounts of his conduct and the criminal proceedings," he submitted.
These included claims on behalf of Mr Dudgeon that the theft matter had been "simply withdrawn" and that he had been "assured" by his lawyers that assault matter would be "overturned", it was submitted.
In evidence to the tribunal, the An Post disciplinary officer, who was not named, said she "couldn't trust [Mr Dudgeon] was telling the truth in relation to any of the matters" and believed that he had "downplayed his role in events".
"This went to his honesty and integrity and resulted in reputational damage," the disciplinary officer told the WRC.
Mr Dudgeon's solicitors, John J Quinn & Co LLP, argued that the outcome of the courts system was not enough to "fire" their client.
"He paid the money and moved on with his life. He believed he had a clean record," it was submitted.
The dismissal letter given to Mr Dudgeon by An Post in September 2021 referred only to "serious shortcomings in your behaviour that impact on your role", but did not specify what these were, the tribunal noted.
After referring to the outcome of the court proceedings, it stated: "[The] question of your honesty and integrity is therefore a serious concern for the company and this in line with your contract is required to be beyond doubt."
The letter went on to state that Mr Dudgeon had brought the postal service "into disrepute", calling this a breach of his contract.
Adjudicator Marguerite Buckley found that Mr Dudgeon's sacking was "clearly related to the out of work conduct and the criminal prosecution".
She said the relevant test to consider was whether the out-of- work conduct "impacted adversely or was capable of impacting adversely on the respondent's business" and said it did not meet that test.
"I am in no way condoning any acts of violence on another person no matter what the context. However, in this case no nexus was provided to me to link the complainant's conduct to the respondent’s business," Ms Buckley wrote.
She added that it was unreasonable for the decision-makers not to consider sanctions short of dismissal in light of Mr Dudgeon's 14-year service.
Upholding the complaint, Ms Buckley awarded compensation of €5,000 to Mr Dudgeon - writing that she was not satisfied the complainant "did enough to mitigate his loss" in his search for new employment.
