Credit union succeeds in having unfair dismissal award to former employee halved
A Co Meath credit union sacked its Head of Lending after examining a number of loans he made including an excessively large car loan made to a person on social welfare.
In the case, the Labour Court has halved the €25,500 awarded to Patrick Leneghan at the Workplace Relation Commission (WRC) to €12,750 for his unfair dismissal by St Colmcille’s (Kells) Credit Union Ltd.
The credit union accepted that it didn’t follow fair procedure in dismissing its Head of Lending and Business Development and was appealing only the quantum of the award made by the WRC to the Labour Court.
In the Labour Court ruling, Deputy Chairman, Alan Haugh said that Mr Leneghan "contributed in no small measure to his own dismissal".
Mr Haugh also confirmed that Mr Leneghan - who had worked for 25 years in the financial services sector before his appointment - also failed to produce credible evidence that he has made sufficiently rigorous attempts to mitigate his loss in the search for new work.
Mr Haugh said that the credit union made an unqualified admission about its failure to follow fair procedures in dismissing Mr Leneghan.
In evidence, CEO of the credit union, Margaret Smith told the Labour Court hearing that the board had been satisfied with Mr Leneghan’s performance during his first fixed-term contract of 12 months and in that period, Mr Leneghan had grown the credit union’s loan book by 55%.
However, Ms Smith said that examples of the concerns about Mr Leneghan's performance onwards included - a query raised by the Central Bank about a loan for €100,000 approved by Mr Leneghan but the application file for which did not include sufficient detail and an excessively large car loan approved by Mr Leneghan to a member whose only source of income was social welfare.
In her evidence, Ms Smith also highlighted concerns around another loan of €4,000 given to a member on social welfare with seven dependents and an unguaranteed car loan given to a 19-year-old member who was not in full-time unemployment.
According to Ms Smith, difficulties also arose when she attempted to ascertain information from Mr Leneghan that was required to deal with queries raised by the credit union's external auditor and/or by the Central Bank.
Ms Smith stated that Mr Leneghan presented key performance indicators and other projections in relation to business development to her that she required to prepare a report for the Board and the Central Bank that simply did not add up with the result that Ms Smith found herself effectively completing an important part of Mr Leneghan's job.
Mr Haugh stated that none of Ms Smith’s evidence about Mr Leneghan’s underperformance was traduced in her cross-examination by his solicitor.
Mr Haugh stated that it follows that the court has to regard Ms Smith’s evidence as uncontested and accepted by Mr Leneghan.
Mr Leneghan - who was on a salary of €60,000 per annum at the credit union - told the hearing that he has applied for some 250 posts in financial services since his dismissal and has been invited for interview on five or six occasions.
