Former bouncer awarded €9,700 in unfair dismissal case

A former bouncer in the Bridge House Hotel has won an unfair dismissal case against his employers, who had been told by a district court judge that they would not have their bar extension licence renewed if he remained in their employment. Seamus Casey, 44 Arden View, Tullamore, was awarded €9,700 in compensation by the Employment Appeal Tribunal which this week published its report on the case. The Employment Appeals Tribunal, ruling that he was unfairly dismissed, noted that there was no contract of employment and 'virtually no proper procedures of any kind were followed'. Mr Casey had worked as a part-time security guard in the nightclub of the Bridge House Hotel for 19 years, had an unblemished record and was described as a 'loyal employee'. 'In the circumstances it would appear that the possibilities of his obtaining future employment in the area in which he had been working for are extremely unlikely,' concluded the Tribunal. Mr Casey took the case against the Bridge House Hotel Ltd and Irish Inns Ltd, which was heard over two sittings on August 28 and November 24, 2008. The tribunal heard that the district court judge had refused a bar extension licence to the Bridge House after a customer had objected to the licence, citing a complaint regarding the behaviour of Mr Casey. The licence was subsequently reinstated on appeal but a few months later, the judge remarked that the licence would not be renewed if Mr Casey continued to be employed. On behalf of the Bridge House, the managing director gave evidence to the tribunal. He told how the bar extension licence is renewed yearly in the District Court, but in October 2006, an objection was made to this. The person who objected told the judge that he and his wife were in the premises of the Bridge House one evening. The man stepped outside but when he went to re-enter, Mr Casey prevented him from doing so saying he had too much to drink. The customer then contacted the duty manager who instructed Mr Casey to let the customer back in. He re-entered but left shortly afterwards, feeling upset by his treatment. He was also a member of the leisure centre and demanded his membership fee back, which was refunded. The District Court judge said that it was disgraceful behaviour and refused the Bridge House its licence. The MD told the tribunal this had very serious consequences for the hotel as some functions were cancelled. After a Circuit Court appeal, the licence was granted. In February 2007, Mr Casey and two gardaí were assaulted after a customer was refused entry to the premises. The case was brought before the same District Court judge, who demanded that the MD and Mr Casey come before him. The judge said that Mr Casey"s employment should not continue. The MD consulted his HR manager and his legal team about this. He told the tribunal he advised Mr Casey to get legal advice. Mr Casey was suspended on full pay until the case was heard. The judge made it clear that if Mr Casey continued to work in the Bridge House, then the licence would not be renewed. The witness investigated the matter and interviewed the staff working the night of the assault but said the hotel was mainly focused on defending Mr Casey"s assault case. He offered Mr Casey another position in maintenance but Mr Casey didn"t want it. The MD wrote to Mr Casey on June 23 2007, informing him that under the circumstances and with no alternative, he would have to terminate his employment. Mr Casey was paid all monies due and plus an ex-gratia payment. His legal fees for the assault case were also paid. On cross-examination, the MD said that Mr Casey had been a loyal employee but that there had been a number of difficulties in the past which came with the nature of the business. He said once he had to take Mr Casey off door work for a number of months as a customer had complained of the way his daughter was treated one evening. The MD said that it was a 'very serious matter' to have the bar extension licence renewal refused. He investigated the complaint that the customer made. Mr Casey told the MD that the customer had too much drink taken, had no ID on him and was very aggressive. The duty manager told the MD that the customer had not been aggressive, was not drunk but had 'a few drinks on him'. When the tribunal asked the MD about the judge"s comments, he said that he was in a very tricky position. He told the tribunal that he had considered dismissing Mr Casey after the first case but took his long service into account. The MD said that Mr Casey was fully aware of the consequences of the second incident brought to the judge"s attention. Mr Casey did a second door policy course and was aware that he may be moved from the door. When asked, the MD said that Mr Casey had no written contract of employment. Terms and conditions of employment were explained to all staff and displayed in the staff room. The disciplinary procedure was also on display for staff. In his own evidence, Mr Casey said that he worked part-time for the Bridge House for 19 years. He said he had a good working relationship with his employer. Mr Casey said that he refused the customer entry in October 2006, as he appeared to be under the influence of too much alcohol. He was also refused entry by another manager at a different entrance. Mr Casey"s decision to refuse entry was supported by his employer. The second incident occurred on January 21, 2007. A group of people approached the nightclub and Mr Casey refused entry to one person as he appeared to have consumed too much alcohol. The group left but later returned. Mr Casey was struck in the face by a member of the group and he followed the assailant into the town square. He identified the assailant to the Gardaí and that person appeared in court on February 7, 2007. The District Court judge then made the comments about Mr Casey. On February 8, Mr Casey"s employer contacted him and said 'our hands are tied, where do we go from here?'. On February 15, 2007 Mr Casey was suspended on full pay. When the court case was heard in May 25, 2007, Mr Casey was awarded damages of €300, but he said he wasn"t given the opportunity to defend his actions in court. He was told by his employer that he had a poor chance of returning to work because of the judge"s comments. In June 2007, Mr Casey received his letter of dismissal. He said he was never called to a meeting to give his version of events, no proper investigation was carried out and he never received a verbal warning or formal written warning. He didn"t receive terms and conditions, he wasn"t offered any other job within the company, other than in an agricultural show that occurred once a year. He received a payment of €2,500 upon dismissal.Mr Casey remained in his full-time job, but has not worked in part-time security since. He made €120 per night when he worked as a bouncer at the nightclub. Under cross examination, Mr Casey agreed that his employer supported him after court proceedings in 2006. He denied that his position had become untenable in light of the judge"s comments and felt that his employer could have found an alternative position for him. He presumed that he was dismissed as a result of the views of the court. He said he has been unable to get security work since then and stopped looking for security work at the beginning of 2008. Mr Casey also said that he did not receive his wages for the last three weeks he worked and never received any holiday payments. He didn"t receive a written contract of employment and no discussions about redundancy took place between himself and his employer.