The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered that a former driver for Minister of Agriculture Charlie McConalogue receive €30,000 in compensation for his unfair dismissal two years ago.
At the hearing, former garda Trevor Shaw claimed he was dismissed from his job in a "sham" redundancy process which left him to choose between the prospect of a job in a dole office or ending 40 years’ service to the State with a severance package.
Mr Shaw served as a ministerial driver from May 2011 until December 2022, and was given a new fixed-term specified contract for each dissolution of the Dáil.
Mr Shaw (65) retired from the Gardaí in 2011 after 31-and-a-half years of service in order to retain his ministerial driving position when civilians initially replaced gardaí.
Mr Shaw sued the Minister for unfair dismissal and WRC Adjudicator Breiffni O'Neill has now ordered the payment of €30,000 in compensation to Mr Shaw for his unfair dismissal, which came into force on Christmas Day, 2022.
In a ruling concerning the Department of Agriculture’s treatment of Mr Shaw, Mr O’Neill said he was making the award due to the “egregious conduct” of his employer surrounding the dismissal, and Mr Shaw’s insufficient efforts to mitigate his financial loss.
Mr O’Neill said the award is in addition to both the redundancy and ex-gratia payment which Mr Shaw has already received.
The State has denied the unfair dismissal claim, but Mr O’Neill stated that Mr Shaw’s employer “acted wholly unreasonably both in peremptorily dismissing Mr Shaw and not engaging in any consultation process whatsoever with him prior to his redundancy”.
He said that the peremptory nature of the dismissal was underscored by the failure to offer an appeal to the decision to dismiss Mr Shaw.
'Egregious treatment'
Mr O’Neill stated that such a process could have given Mr Shaw “the opportunity to defend his future employment and highlight his willingness to work in alternative roles”.
They stated that it is symptomatic of the egregious treatment of Mr Shaw throughout this process “that the date of the termination of his employment was Christmas Day, namely December 25th, 2022”.
Mr O’Neill added that it was the evidence of an official from the Department of Agriculture that Mr Shaw was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy because he was a Civilian Driver.
The Department’s witness claimed Mr Shaw was no longer required because a decision had been made, on foot of security concerns, that the drivers of all regular Cabinet attendees, had to be serving Garda members.
Mr O’Neill stated that when redundancy is cited as the reason for the termination of employment, it is necessary not only to satisfy the definition of redundancy but also to demonstrate that Mr Shaw was fairly dismissed.
Left dangling
Mr O’Neill noted that Mr Shaw heard rumours in early 2022 that a decision had been made to dismiss all the civilian drivers.
He said that Mr Shaw was gravely concerned for his livelihood after this, and repeatedly questioned the Department about it.
However, he received no clarification whatsoever about his future employment, “and was effectively left dangling for almost a year, until he finally received notification of his termination on November 25th, 2022, without any consultation whatsoever having been engaged in by the Department prior to this”.
Mr O’Neill noted, in addition to the absence of a consultation process, the Department made a “shocking assertion” that it was obliged to dismiss Mr Shaw on foot of an instruction from the Department of Public Expenditure.
Mr O’Neill said any prudent employer, in addition to engaging in a meaningful consultation with Mr Shaw, would have insisted that the Department of Public Expenditure incorporate all civilian drivers of regular Cabinet attendees, who were at risk of redundancy, into a selection matrix.
“This matrix should have also included drivers of junior ministers, who were to be retained, and appropriate redundancy selection criteria should have been chosen, rather than relying solely on the criterion of which Minister they were driving for,” Mr O’Neill said.
He added that only one alternative to redundancy was presented to Mr Shaw by the Department of Agriculture prior to issuing his notification of dismissal, a position as a temporary clerical officer in the Department of Social Welfare.
Mr O’Neill said this role “was offered without any consultation or discussion around the Complainant’s skill set, and was refused by him because it was unsuitable, largely because he did not have the IT skills that he believed would be required for the role”.
Ellen Walsh, of Sean Ormonde Solicitors for Mr Shaw, told the hearing the Department of Agriculture’s handling of the matter was a “fiasco” which failed to honour her client’s employment rights, branding it a “sham redundancy”.
