The Mayo News

A KILMEENA man who admitted sending pornographic material from his work e-mail address at Allergan Pharmaceuticals has failed in his attempt to be reinstated in his job - despite the Chairman of an Employment Appeals Tribunal determining that the man had been ‘unfairly dismissed’. Kilmeena man sent pornographic material from Allergan computer


A KILMEENA man who admitted sending pornographic material from his work e-mail address at Allergan Pharmaceuticals has failed in his attempt to be reinstated in his job – despite the Chairman of an Employment Appeals Tribunal determining that the man had been ‘unfairly dismissed’.
Mr Noel Geraghty, with an address at Kilmeena, Westport, appealed the decision of a Right’s Commisioner and the results of the appeal were released last week.
In his appeal, Mr Geraghty said he was employed with Allergan from 1999 to 2006.
He was called to a meeting on June 16, 2006 and was told that his job was under threat because his actions were serious. He was told that he had sent e-mails and he initially
denied this, as he was not thinking straight. There was a threat of legal action against the company.
Mr Geraghty said he thought he had no option but to resign otherwise other people would lose their jobs. The Human Resources (HR) manager told him that if he resigned he could get his job back in September of the same year. The HR manager also later that day told him that if he did not resign then he would be dismissed and that if he was sacked, he would never work there again. Mr Geraghty said after meeting with his shop steward on June 22, 2006, he decided to resign. He felt under pressure to resign and felt he had no choice. 
He said he resigned because of the company mentioning legal action and lawsuits. He thought he could not be there if that was going to happen. He thought that if he resigned he would get his job back.
In response to questions, Mr Geraghty explained that he had meant to send the e-mail to a friend and he did not think that there would be two people in the country with nearly the same e-mail address. The appellant did not deny that he sent the e-mails.
The representative for the company at the hearing confirmed that three other employees were sending similar e-mails as those sent by the appellant. These employees had sent the e-mails internally within the company, not externally, and their actions did not bring a threat against the company. The three employees concerned were spoken to individually, advised of the seriousness of their actions and were given written warnings. None of them offered to resign.
In reply to questioning, the company representative confirmed that the appellant’s employment would have been terminated had he not resigned.
Having considered all the evidence in this case, the Tribunal found by majority that the appellant’s appeal against the Rights Commissioner’s decision failed.
However, the chairman of the tribunal, Mr Fahy, in his dissenting opinion, found that Mr Geraghty’s resignation was not a voluntary resignation and was induced directly by the threat of criminal proceedings.
He also considered that Mr Geraghty was treated differently from other employees who breached company policy relating to e-mail transmissions. He considered that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and that the appropriate sanction in this case should be a suspension of two months from his employment.
However, by majority, the Tribunal, having carefully considered the written submissions and the evidence adduced at the hearing, found  that the claimant breached the company’s email policy and this constituted grave misconduct.

---

Share this page