Security guard sacked for sleeping on the job loses case for unfair dismissal

Darragh Mc Donagh

A security guard who was sacked after he was found asleep on duty by a compliance team at a primary care centre in Dublin has lost a case for unfair dismissal.

Amen Kifle had argued at an adjudication hearing of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that he had merely closed his eyes due to a migraine and had not been asleep.

However, the hearing was told that Mr Kifle had admitted to falling asleep in a signed statement after the incident, and a supervisor had had to knock on a door for a full minute before the security guard let him in.

Kifle had been employed by Synergy Security Solutions for more than a year when a compliance officer visited a primary care centre in Coolock at 5:30 am last July, and reported finding the security guard asleep on duty.

In his evidence to the WRC, he described himself as a punctual and reliable worker with an unblemished record, who was frequently flexible with his hours to accommodate his employer’s needs.

Kifle said he had been working a 13-hour shift without a break and began suffering from a migraine on the morning in question. He claimed to have taken medication and briefly closed his eyes due to light sensitivity and pain.

He also raised concerns over inconsistent treatment, claiming that a colleague who had been caught sleeping on the job on two occasions merely received a warning and was later promoted.

He also complained that he had been subjected to “excessive” working hours, claiming that he had been required to work seven consecutive days without a break, and alleged that he had been questioned inappropriately about his religion by a supervisor.

Synergy Security Solutions told the WRC thatKifle had initially admitted to sleeping on duty during the subsequent investigation.

The company said it had a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding sleeping on the job.

It argued that the decision to dismiss Kifle for gross misconduct had followed a fair investigation and full appeal process. The sanction of dismissal was entirely proportionate given the nature of the misconduct involved, it claimed.

In his decision, WRC adjudication officer Dónal Moore said the company had provided documented and consistent evidence of an admission by Mr Kifle that he had been asleep on duty. He preferred this evidence over subsequent denials.

Moore said the company’s procedures were robust and the loss of trust in the employee following the incident had justified termination, noting that a strict policy on sleeping was justified by the nature of the security industry.

He concluded that Kifle’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 was not well-founded, and a number of other issues raised regarding working hours and discrimination were outside his jurisdiction as they had not been formally referred to the WRC.