Heineken ordered to pay €30k compo to ex-employee accused of disseminating confidential documents

A former brewery worker with Heineken who was accused of disseminating highly confidential and commercially sensitive documents has been awarded almost €30,000 compensation after a ruling that he was unfairly dismissed from his job.

A three-day hearing of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in June was told that Keith Hackett had worked as a brewery operator with Heineken for 17 years before his employment was terminated on October 6, 2022 for gross misconduct.

The WRC heard evidence that Mr Hackett was fired for the alleged dissemination of company documents as well as breaching the company’s dignity at work policy. Mr Hackett denied the allegations about his conduct and also claimed he was not given minimum notice. However, Heineken claimed that the dismissal was fair and notice was not required when the reason was for gross misconduct.

READ MORE: Fury as Ryanair leaves passengers 'stranded' in tiny Irish airport amid Storm Ashley flight chaos

READ MORE: Gardai to begin dig for missing boy Kyran Durnin amid fears he died two years ago

The WRC heard that Heineken initiated an investigation after two other workers had lodged complaints about bullying and harassment by Mr Hackett, which was subsequently expanded to investigate alleged derogatory comments he had made about female colleagues.

It was informed that the investigation discovered that Mr Hackett had sent confidential company data, including brewing processes, safety control reports and other sensitive documents, to his personal e-mail. Heineken concluded that such behaviour posed a significant risk to its operations and security and dismissed Mr Hackett on October 5, 2022 following a disciplinary hearing the previous month. He was also issued with a final written warning for the derogatory comments about female staff.

An appeal by Mr Hackett against the dismissal was rejected in November 2022. The WRC heard that it was accepted by one of the investigators that it was never the intention of Mr Hackett to share or otherwise circulate the documents in question.

Heineken’s HR director, Alfonso Auñón Garcia, told the WRC that it was the worst case of gross misconduct he had come across in his 20 years in the job. Mr Garcia said he had factored in Mr Hackett’s previous unblemished work record into his decision to dismiss the complainant.

The company claimed the process which concluded his behaviour warranted dismissal was “fair, reasonable and proportionate”. It claimed his defensive stance and denial of allegations without showing any accountability or remorse had left the company with no choice but to terminate his employment to protect other staff and ensure data security.

In evidence, Mr Hackett said the brewhouse where he worked was “a man’s world” where banter and colourful language was the norm between male co-workers. He told the WRC that he had encountered problems training two new staff at a time when he had to look after three brewing processes. Mr Hackett described the atmosphere at his workstation as “toxic”.

He said various alternative working arrangements he suggested, including moving to a different shift or taking a €500 drop in wages to move to another part of the brewery, were refused. Instead, he claimed he was offered three options after taking a period of sick leave – return to work and try to manage the training, stay out sick long-term or leave the company with no package.

Mr Hackett said he was shocked that he was the subject of allegations of bullying, which resulted in him being suspended from work and escorted off the premises. He told the WRC that he did not regard showing company documents in his possession to demonstrate mistakes by staff he was training as a data breach but it had been used to open a fresh disciplinary investigation.

Mr Hackett acknowledged it would have been a serious breach of policy if confidential documents had been disclosed externally. However, he did not believe he was guilty of misconduct in the way it was framed. He accepted that inappropriate comments towards female colleagues were unacceptable.

In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Thomas O’Driscoll, said the investigation by Heineken was severely limited as it did not comply with its own dignity at work policy. Mr O’Driscoll said the company’s HR team had bypassed the core principle requiring separate investigation and disciplinary processes.

He pointed out that the role of investigators had been limited to uncovering facts rather than determining whether gross misconduct had occurred, which had been determined by Mr Garcia, who had also taken the decision to dismiss Mr Hackett.

Mr O’Driscoll said Heineken also failed to consider the overall context of the “rough-and-tumble” work environment in the brewhouse. He noted that Mr Garcia did not seem to consider the finding that Mr Hackett had no intention of sharing the documents and had disclosed his possession of them in a manner which would indicate a lack of malicious intent “to any reasonable person”.

The WRC official said he was convinced that the company formed an unreasonable belief that it had carried out a fair and thorough investigation. Mr Hackett estimated his loss at €90,000 but the WRC determined it was €60,000 as it should not include two discretionary annual bonuses.

However, it reduced the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal to €18,000 to reflect that Mr Hackett had contributed substantially to his dismissal by engaging in unacceptable behaviour that should have warranted a lesser sanction. The WRC also awarded him €11,048 for the company’s failure to provide him with minimum notice.

Join the Irish Mirror’s breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive breaking news and the latest headlines direct to your phone. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.